There is no God.
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 05:01
VIEWED: 30440
PAGE 18 of 25
Quote:Is that an ideal you believe in: a world where only rational and evidence-based ideals exist? And is this ideal itself rational and evidence-based?
Originally posted by nanite1018:
I also think everyone has to believe in some ideal, i just wish people believed in more rational and backed-by-evidence ideals.
I like vanilla ice cream. I wished everybody else also likes vanilla ice cream. It's an ideal that keeps me going in tough times.
Is that rational? Is it evidence-based? See, my point is that what you wish for, what you need to believe in, what keeps you going, DOESN'T HAVE to be rational and evidence based. Your inspiration can be whatever you want, even if it seems silly to other people. It's not for others to judge.
Science, BTW, is not religion's competitor. They are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of scientists who are devoutly religious. I'm a scientist myself. My husband is a scientist. God is very important to both of us.
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whew! Much good discussion since last night! And some mud slinging too, that's a shame.
Poor Rugbug - you've got people jumping all over you! I'm trying to make sure that everything I say is just my little world view, and I'm not trying to change yours. I hope you know that!
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Mal4Prez: I don't think God experiences emotions the way we do. Everything about man has been corrupted. Our emotions are corruptions of what they should be and what I would imagine (although can't prove) God experiences. For instance, we don't love selflessly or unconditionally. Our anger is very, very rarely righteous...most of the time it is self-righteous. (and calling what the Pres is doing anything akin to righteous anger is really distorting what is going on. He is not acting out of righteousness. He is acting out of politic). I'm not even sure I could ever experience true righteous anger is just too much "dark" in me.
Not sure what to make of this comment:Quote:
Wrong as the superior but oh so distant being defines it. That's so limited, and leaves room for people to mess with it in very damaging ways. (Hello pedophiles!)
Can you clarify?
This has been gone over last night by CTC (nice first post CTC - but I can't even follow the spat you're having with Misbehaven. Yikes! Would two just kiss and make up or something?)
But - to restate my way - Organized religion can be used as a blank check to allow damaging behavior combined with a sense of moral superiority. The problem is not precisely with the church, it's with the individuals who misuse it. For example - I don't believe GWB is acting purely out of politics. Those behind him are, but Dubya (IMHO) thinks he's taking the best path toward safeguarding the physical and economic well-being of US citizens, by trying to end terrorism and control the oil supply.
The problem is, he is so set on what he's doing, on it being the righteous path and supported by God (who talks to him - let's not forget that!) that he does not listen to criticism, and he thinks his way is the ONLY way. Anyone who disagrees with Dubya is amoral, un-American, and probably even anti-God. This is super dangerous, because he is completely blind to the pitfalls, and doesn't see how his actions are likely to bite him and LOTS of other people in the ass!
But this behavior is encouraged to some extent by the Christian God. He passes judgement and doles out vengeance and anger, or love and forgiveness, as he sees fit. Because He's in power and He's the Boss. And we're supposed to accept it without a thought! We're supposed to hand our babies over to be killed if He asks! (Abraham and Isaac, anyone?) And we're promised something intangible, this afterlife thing, in return.
I just don't see the hands of truly loving divinity in this. It's a rotten deal, and I can only see it as the construction of men who were in power nearly 2000 years ago, who distorted the message of a truly great man who'd died a couple hundred years before the Bible was written.
Kudos to you Rugbug, if you pick out the good things in there! I'm certainly not saying that there aren't good things in the Bible and in religion, just that too many people approach it blindly and don't feel personally responsibility for their own beliefs and actions. It's exactly what CTC posted above about doing something right versus doing something because God said you should.
The pedophiles thing - that was a problem inside the church, the hiding of that scandal. As you say, Rugbug, the church is political, and it starts mixing messages when it worries about it's own survival. I'm extremely leary of anything that combines politics with the power to judge people's souls and define their personal beliefs.
That scandal wasn't the best thing for me to bring up... there are better ones... Let's see - sex. We can't have premarital sex, can't masturbate, can't have birth control. So here we have an organization telling us our sex drives are faulty and must be controlled. We must ma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll just step in here with my own personal experience.
______________________________________________
|
| I find NOT believing in god to be a relief.
|_____________________________________________
There's no thought in the back of my mind that maybe if only I did (X) rite /feeling /belief more or better then maybe possibly god(s) would listen. There are no hidden hoops, magical gotchas or unknown costs.
And I hope that everyone at some point in their lives has known what it is to be in harmony with themselves and the world. I believe it comes from normal brain function - the feel good signal fMRI detects when people co-operate and the feel-good signal of trust. I don't need a daddy in the sky threatening to spank me in order to follow the good.
The world is wysisyg. You see what you see, do what you can, and rest easy that your visible efforts, even if small, are meaningful.
I like a world where there are no anxiety-producing hidden agendas, where one follows the good from the inside, and where actual work counts.
------------------------------------
That doesn't address whether there is (a) god(s) or not. But in NT religions, belief is specifically about what you chose to trust in the total absence of evidence. So it will never be settled by argument. You either believe, or you don't. IMHO
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
Chris, you may very well not exist. How do i know? I have no proof.
Obviously but my point is that you don't have evidence either, a point you clearly disagree with. I probably shouldn't side track us by explaining why but since I brought it up I'll give it at least one shot.
Quote:
But you claim to be someone, you don't appear to be lying,
with you so far.
Quote:
and all of the evidence (the background, the posts, everything) backs the hypothesis that you are an actual person.
And that’s where you lose me.
Quote:
Now I have two hypotheses, one that you are an individual, the other that you are a creation, an imaginary person created by someone else.
This seems to me a lot like god, so maybe talking about this isn't as off topic as I thought. Then again it could also sound like aliens.
There are two possibilities:
I am/god is/aliens are an actual individual/actual individuals the other is that I am/god is/aliens are a creation, an imaginary entity/entities created by someone else.
In all three cases I have a long series of actions attributed to the thing in question, and in all three cases there are other explanations for those things ranging from hoax to the planet Venus.
Quote:
Occam's Razor dictates that if you have two hypotheses that both explain the data equally well than the one with fewer assumptions is most likely true.
In fact it makes no statement about which one is most likely true, all that it does say is, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," (though sometimes the spelling varies as I've also seen, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," and a couple of others) which is very different. I mean when you read what it actually says it is talking about what should be done when creating a theory, it doesn't even mention the truth or accuracy of said theory.
Then we move from that to saying the theory that is more in line with the idea that we don't multiply entities sine neccesitate is the one that science will accept. It does not say the other is wrong because if there were a way to know the other was wrong we wouldn't need the thing to make the decision. It does not even say the other is more likely to be wrong.
I bring this up because a lot of people get this confused, Occam's Razor is a way of choosing which theory is more scientific, not which theory is more likely to be correct. It is in no way related to truth.
This has no bearing on the rest of the conversation, but I couldn't just sit back and let you go on having an incorrect version of the razor, I'd feel bad about myself for not correcting a friend before an asshole came along and insulted you about it.
Einstein actually felt the need to point out that the simplest thing is not necessarily the most correct when he said about his theory of Relativity, "In my opinion the theory here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory that is at all possible. But this does not mean that nature might not obey a more complex theory." He, of course, went on to say, "In my view, such more complicated systems and their combinations should be considered only if there exist physical-empirical reasons to do so."
That is what the Razor is all about, more complex theories might be true, and the Razor does not say they stand any less of a chance of being true, but even so they will be rejected until there is reason to accept them. The difference between acceptance and truth is important, at least from my perspective.
Quote:
Now, what does that mean for this case? Well theory 1 has one assumption: there's someone who is christhecynic out in the world, and no one else is involved with the posts, you represent one person. The other requires that there be someone else, who desires to be able to say things without people knowing it was them AND that they created an elaborate back-story and POV and style of writing that appears to come from some individual person. Which has fewer assumpNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to say that for the most part this has remained a civil and interesting discussion with various belief systems being represented. PLEASE, can we keep it that way?
There is no need for personal attacks on each other. Please respect that other people are entitled to believe in a manner other than your own.
No one person owns the license on truth.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic...
* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTC,
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because our discussion is rapidly degenerating. You obviously believe that I have insufficiently aswered your questions, and I clearly think your questions are redundant. So, we seem to be at an impasse, which I seriously doubt we are going to resolve with further posts. For my rudeness, I apologize; however, I thought you were making a snide remark to me, as I am not normally inclined to insulting others. Again, we obviously have a failure to communicate effectively with one another. That said, there remains plenty of other people here, and I feel certain that we would both find it more productive to discuss this topic with some of them. Take care, CTC.
Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't need a daddy in the sky threatening to spank me in order to follow the good.
Yay! I like that!
And let's hear it for peace!
-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Psychologically, developmentally, children have gods: their parents. A child sees in a parent a perfect ruler of reality; a loving, infalible higher power. If such a "god" punishes the child, the child will naturally internalize the punishment and assume that it was deserved, that the "god" is "rightious." Even if such a parent merely hurts the child out of negligence, the child will naturally construe it as a "just punishment" for some imagined "sin."
This kind of identification with the parent at all costs is a natural survival mechanism. Of course any parent can tell you that for some months around the age of 2 and for several years in puberty (at the very least), it is natural for a child to "call b.s." on all that.
"You're not the boss of me!"
"I hate you!"
"I wish I'd never been born!"
"I wish I was adopted!"
This kind of outburst is normal and necessary for a the child to mature and fully individuate. If a child does not go through these "rebelious phases," it's likely to create all kinds of trouble down the line.
Quite apart from the issue of whether God ultimately exists or not, there's an argument to be made here that people's belief in God is often reflective of an immature relationship to reality. Many folks, it would seem, when faced with the ultimate falibility and frailty of their real parents still feel the need for a perfect loving caretaker and so project these needs onto God.
In some ways God serves their purposes much better than a parent ever could, because real flesh and blood parents will eventually disappoint; while the special neither-here-nor-there nature of God guarentees that their projection of perfection will never be falsified. As long as God is the perfect father of a perfect dead guy, who nonetheless follows us around unseen and loves us in ways we can never prove to anyone, we, like happy infants, can assume all misfortune is deserved and all pleasure is a gift from the Almighty. Some Christians, for instance, apparently look at the people dying by the tens of thousands in the Middle East and rejoice in God's Providence. Obviously, a belief in God can be a powerful tool to comfort the mind when faced with senseless man-made atrocity.
So infantile needs can be projected onto the universe and foster a belief in a loving God. And adolescent beliefs can be projected onto the universe and foster an aggressive atheism. But developmentally many people do manage to reach psychological maturity and autonomy; many of us come to understand our parents as friends and as equals, helpers along the way. I have to say that in my own experience, the majority of theists I have known who went through a thorough atheistic phase in their lives have been a good deal more sensible and responsible in their beliefs than the majority of belly-button Christians I've had to deal with.
Perhaps one day, we as a race will come to an understanding of the Earth and the Universe not as a Mother from whom we may take and take and take until she's used up ("Earth?" "Used up?" Where have I heard that before?), or a cold and neglegent absentee father whom we must investigate and expose, but as friends and helpers along the way who deserve our respect and protection.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to say that, snarking and emotional trauma aside, this is the most interesting and informed debate on this subject I've read on the net. In fact, it beats most of the debates on God I came accross in college. I'm constantly surprised by just how intelligent and insightful the posters on this site are. It's a great place to hang out and talk about life's great mysteries.
That's all. Just sharin' the love, like we Hippies do...
More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, after a long evening filled with car troubles that spilled into this morning, I've made my way back here. Let's see if I can answer a few things that have been directed my way:
Citizen: My problem with your talk of opposites was that you said they HAVE to exist together...and then went further to say they had to exist together in the same being. The only conclusion of your statement was that God is both good and evil. I disagree that the opposites must exist together.
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Poor Rugbug - you've got people jumping all over you! I'm trying to make sure that everything I say is just my little world view, and I'm not trying to change yours. I hope you know that!
No worries mal4prez.... I'm not taking anything personally.
Quote:
Can you clarify?
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This has been gone over last night by CTC (nice first post CTC
The problem is, he is so set on what he's doing, on it being the righteous path and supported by God (who talks to him - let's not forget that!) that he does not listen to criticism, and he thinks his way is the ONLY way. Anyone who disagrees with Dubya is amoral, un-American, and probably even anti-God.
But this behavior is encouraged to some extent by the Christian God. He passes judgement and doles out vengeance and anger, or love and forgiveness, as he sees fit. Because He's in power and He's the Boss. And we're supposed to accept it without a thought! We're supposed to hand our babies over to be killed if He asks! (Abraham and Isaac, anyone?) And we're promised something intangible, this afterlife thing, in return.
Ah, I guess I don't think God is encouraging blind belief in anything, not even him and especially not another man.
As for GWB, I'm not sure you can blame his personality defects on religion. There have been plenty of presidents who have been believers and who have lead well. The best leaders I've ever known, in the church or out, listen to others and know that they are fallible. They are interesting in all sides of the argument, etc. Dubya is just Dubya.
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Let's see - sex. We can't have premarital sex, can't masturbate, can't have birth control. So here we have an organization telling us our sex drives are faulty and must be controlled. We must make babies - that's it. To hell with that! If we were created by some loving divinity, I think it'd be saying that sex is enjoyable (when done right) and our naked bodies are wonderful, honorable things, whether babies are made or not.
Rugbug - this makes me think of what you said about our emotions being "corruptions of what they should be." That saddens me! Why can't we love our faulted selves instead of always being ashamed?
Well, again, the birth control thing and sex for procreation only is Catholic, so I don't believe in that...nor do I believe there is a biblical basis for those doctrines. Sex was meant to be enjoyable, to bring two people together and to strengthen their bond as well as make the babies. Ideally, I think that would be within the context of marriage or a similarly committed relationship. IMO, people have learned to minimize the emotional aspects of sex so they can participate more often. Sex lite, so to speak. All the pleasure without the pesky emotions to get in the way.
As for corrupt emotions, I did not mean that we should live in shame, but rather that we don't experience the emotions in the truest sense. What we experience as "love" is only 1/2 of what God experiences as love. In Christian terms, our emotions are experienced 'post-fall' (introduction of sin into the world) when a more perfect experience would have been 'pre-fall.'
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Or not allowing women to be priests... can it be any more archaic? How can anyone believe that an organization that denies the spiritual worth of half the species has any realistic interest in the happiness or fulfillment of real, individual peopleNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME