Do you believe in God?

[FiftyBelowZero]

God began the beginning, then science took over. God watches over us now, in today's world, and will decide the fate of the dead.

-- fiftybelowzero 22:47

 

[GT5Redsucker23]

Yes, I believe in God!

 

[jimipitbull]

Odin and Thor, yes. Loki, no.

 

[Imari]

Pizza isn't all there is, doesn't mean pizza is flawed.

There is either A; a whole branch of science we haven't discovered yet (which is highly likely) or B; something else that mirrors the physics we know, presant in our atmosphere.

People talk like science is a body of knowledge. It's not. Science is a way of figuring things out.

If you see something you don't understand, that's exactly the sort of thing science is perfect for.
Not, if there's something you don't understand then obviously science is no use because it hasn't explained it yet.

There is a whole universe of things we haven't seen or discovered yet. Some things we know we don't understand, but there are even more things that we have no idea that we should even be trying to understand.

 

[LeMansAid]

The original kind.

As in, the first? Or one that is not like others?

And in that you're wrong. A morally correct religion shouldn't cause any unnecessary suffering for its followers, or any other person or the planet for the record.

"Unnecessary suffering"..... How do we determine this? I know I've played video games where there has been a fine line between pointless and rewarding suffering. There's definitely room for some "no pain, no gain" mentality in general living as well as living within the context of a religion. Though I think that sometimes the logical principles within some religions morph into pointless traditions, as people religiously play out the sequences, without sufficient focus on the aims. Perhaps the idea of the benefit not being about the act itself, but more about the human impact of the representative act is lost.

I was recently thinking about how various religious denominations do baptism at different ages. The idea of baptising a baby made no sense to me at all. Then, the thought occurred to me that maybe the impact is actually meant for the parent(s). That the process of "giving our child to God" is potentially a valuable mental/spiritual adjustment for the ones charged with the massive responsibility of raising a child. I wonder if the focus on the intended impacts rather than so much on the physical act might be part of what helps Buddhism to seemingly be much more inoffensive and approachable to non-believers, and maybe part of what helps buddhists to not condemn and kill people in the name of their religion.

I think it'd be nice for believers and non-believers alike to focus more on the potentially beneficial human impacts of religious acts. Might also help to make believers less annoying (or murderous), and non-believers less annoyed (or dead).

 

[Imari]

I was recently thinking about how various religious denominations do baptism at different ages. The idea of baptising a baby made no sense to me at all. Then, the thought occurred to me that maybe the impact is actually meant for the parent(s). That the process of "giving our child to God" is potentially a valuable mental/spiritual adjustment for the ones charged with the massive responsibility of raising a child.

It was also fairly important way back when, because until fairly recently a significant proportion of children died very young. If you live in that sort of situation and believe in baptism, it absolutely makes sense to have your child baptised as early as possible, just in case.

 

[LeMansAid]

It was also fairly important way back when, because until fairly recently a significant proportion of children died very young. If you live in that sort of situation and believe in baptism, it absolutely makes sense to have your child baptised as early as possible, just in case.

That's if someone goes with the idea that the physical act does something in and of itself. I'd view the actions as more of a carrier or an inspirer of spiritual workings, rather than the performing of the act being innately spiritual.

Similar to some sticking with the concept of the bread and wine becoming actual flesh and blood for communion, and others understanding it as representative, and mind, mood and mode aiding.

 

[Danoff]

That's if someone goes with the idea that the physical act does something in and of itself. I'd view the actions as more of a carrier or an inspirer of spiritual workings, rather than the performing of the act being innately spiritual.

Similar to some sticking with the concept of the bread and wine becoming actual flesh and blood for communion, and others understanding it as representative, and mind, mood and mode aiding.

It's so much simpler than that.

Religions need to preach that everyone needs them. All people must kneel before your religion so that your religion is the supreme authority. If religion said that people who live good lives will get into heaven regardless of whether or not they believe, then not only would they have a lot fewer members, but they wouldn't get to claim superiority over everyone else. Thus original sin, but wait... that means babies are sinners too. How do we save them from going to hell? Nobody's going to like the idea of infants going to hell.

Uh... darn... well... what if we came up with a ritual that could cleanse them immediately after birth? Good? Yea? Ok let's do that.

 

[LeMansAid]

Depends if we're having a discussion with complete or only partial cynicism at it's core. It's pretty easy to explain away everything when coming from the angle that it's all a control-inspired human construct, but it's a bit different when playing "angel's advocate".

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It is a choice. It's a really 🤬 choice, but it's there. Kind of like, you have the choice to pick a fight, unarmed, with the entire Denver Broncos football team. Now, you are technically free to make that choice, it's just highly not recommended.

Not sure what your point is here?

SCJ, I do not agree with your defence plan, but I have to give you credit. Still standing up for your beliefs even though all these others are combating it, is in my book, a sign of positive nature. Some will say its just stubbornness, but you obviously didn't come to GTPlanet to make enemies, so standing up even though there's so many people agienst you is cool. As long as you stay polite, and research the best you can, you'll be fine.

I didn't really, at least by my original intent, come to GTP to witness in this thread, but once I saw it, I knew it was destiny.
There was no way I couldn't do it.

As to why, has nothing to do with stubbornness, but the reality of the relationship, I have, and anyone else can have if they want it.

I don't really consider it "enemy making", although by some perspectives, it could be viewed in that light.
There is a reason for the old saying, "Never discuss religion or politics".

I have to admit, I really enjoy it. Perhaps too much sometimes.

I find these discussions, very revealing and fascinating, as to views, beliefs, outlooks, etc.
I don't take it personally.
Obviously, everyone has their beliefs and basis for them.

Understand, I was raised thinking what you think. Only life experience and gained knowledge has turned me away from it. Today, I consider Mother Nature as the name of God/Goddess. And I consider a lot of my family's Celtic beliefs as the truth. Science/the universe/and Nature is my Bible.
So I do believe in God. And I believe he is the same being I've always known my whole life. I just don't believe the authors of the Bible have a clue who God really is. They depict a recipe that is to teach new generations how to be nice to each other. I just don't like a lot of the methodology they utilize. And through time and translators, the bible got tainted from its purpose.
Good luck proving yourself though, it's going to be hard seeing as the faith is based on just that, Faith. Sort of "take my word for it and you will be saved" doesn't fly in a fact combat situation, lol.

I would say more of a resistance/reluctance situation than combat.
Combat in a spiritual sense, yes.

And god's creation, when subjected to this "necessary" test of perfection, utterly failed. So where do you go from there?

Utterly, only in a temporary sense.
At least for some.
We are in the season of grace, so you are able to realign with GOD's plan and purpose.

Wut? Pretty much every religion ever has told the same stories about the same people, offered similarly outlandish creation myths, and promised some sort of eternal life/afterlife for its followers while tossing non-believers into some sort of eternal misery. What exactly does Christianity offer so "much more" of compared to the others?

The thing I find different about it is, it doesn't just treat the symptoms, but identifies the disease and provides a cure.

 

[Carbonox]

"Unnecessary suffering"..... How do we determine this?

Well, when saying that, I was quoting the post about blasphemy laws. They cause the kind of completely immoral suffering that is only one of the reasons why Christianity fails to provide the so called "absolute morality".

 

[Imari]

Not sure what your point is here?

Because any choice where one option comes with a free side of eternal torture is not a free choice. Hence things like Pascal's Wager. For any semi-rational being it's not a choice at all.

If any human said that if you didn't believe what he told you he would lock you up and torture you, he would be considered a total psychopath. But somehow when God does it, it's OK.

 

[CC570]

I believe that everyone has a need to believe in something.

 

[demonchilde]

On the other hand, this all under the assumption this is the Christian God were discussing vs. Atheism.
There's also the possibility there is a 'God', only he makes Charles Manson look like mother Theresa.
Think about all the questions like;
"If there's a God, how come he lets this and that happen?"
"If there's a God, why is there so much doom and gloom?"
Sure, it would be a nice dream to have a fluffy teddy bear God, but it just might be there's some being up there laughing hysterically right now.
He could have 30 'big bang' experiments in little glass spheres where he tests each with different crap we could only dream of.
My imagination could easily take that further, lol.
But you know what? Seems there's more evidence that if there is a God, he isn't exactly who the Christians and Jews think he is.
Just playing devils advocate again.

 

[Carbonox]

There's also the possibility there is a 'God', only he makes Charles Manson look like mother Theresa.

Meh, that doesn't really work because both people in your example are equally evil.

 

[huskeR32]

And god's creation, when subjected to this "necessary" test of perfection, utterly failed. So where do you go from there?

Utterly, only in a temporary sense.
At least for some.
We are in the season of grace, so you are able to realign with GOD's plan and purpose.

No, utterly in an utter and complete sense. Anybody who has ever been killed because of Christianity (and that number is surely in the millions), is permanently dead. There's nothing temporary at all about losing your life. And don't try and paint over it with some rubbish about eternal afterlife making up for it. That dismissive attitude towards our precious and fleeting time on this rock is one of the most wretched things about religion.

If this is all truly "god's creation," then it failed this so-called test of perfection the first time someone's life was forfeit to it, and it continues to fail with every additional death as well.

The thing I find different about it is, it doesn't just treat the symptoms, but identifies the disease and provides a cure.

I assume you mean sin? Right, Christianity is the only religion in the world with a concept of sin, and the only one that offers some sort of salvation for its righteous followers.

 

[LeMansAid]

Dredging a little here, yes.

And if they were to shout "All praise to Scaaaaaaff" before they detonated, you would be guilty by association?

I think that the concept of God comes either from an innate knowing that there is a higher power, or an emotional need to feel that there is a higher power. Either way, that God is nondescript, and people take it into their own hands from there.

If I had written a text that calls for the death of those that do not follow the rules I had laid down and I had an organization of followers that enforced those rules then actually yes (just as a certain chap called Manson was).

Your logic would only work if god was a random item people had chosen to use as a figure head, and that's clearly not the case, they are carrying out the actions based on the text of a book (s) they believe are the work of god. Books that go into detail about what the rules are in regard to those who do not follow the rules of god (take a look at what Gideon does to those who chose a different religion). As such this violence and harm most certainly is coming from a belief in god and a desire to carry out his word.

That's without looking at why god allows it to be carried it in his name if he is all powerful (must be because it's all nonsense). As such god and religion are both the problem and we would be better off without them, as you are never going to have a god without people wanting to please it, and that has without exception in human history involved hurting those who don't believe in it or don't believe in it in quite the right way. What is all the more ridiculous is that its being done in the name of, and belief in, something that doesn't exist.

I notice that you had to embellish with "ifs" to be able to answer yes.

I also noticed that you pre-ordered a PS4. When it arrives and you play the games available, will you judge PS4 as good or bad based on how good or bad the games are? Will you deem PS4 to be as valid as the worst game available to play on it, as many anti-theists (including the ones that call themselves atheists) judge the concept of God based on the worst behaving religion? Or will PS4 be its own entity? Something that may be represented both extremely well and extremely poorly by it's games?

If God exists, religion attaches itself to God. Not the other way around. The pivot point of course is The Bible in the case of Christianity, but even for the people believing that it was written by God itself, they seem to generally believe that it is open to interpretation. That there are representatives and metaphors used, that can be interpreted in many ways. Then, if we were to view The Bible as God inspired, but written by humans within the context of a particular culture, all bets are off really. Going further, people can believe in a Christian God without believing that The Bible had anything to do with God.

So going back to a question that you asked: "So how does one go about separating God from religion?" Well, they don't. They're separate by default.

Going back further again, my assertion still stands: Explaining the idea of attacking the existence of God with a rationale of rectifying the horrible things that individuals within religions are responsible for is either misguided or false. At the very least God would be third in line after 1. the individual, and 2. the religion.

So if Fifa 14 on PS4 is terrible, can I assume that you'll think that it's sensible for people to insist that PS4 must be at fault, rather than insist that Fifa 15 must be done better? Which would be the more logical plan of attack, and which would be "misguided"?

*the original conversation begun on page 398

 

[BobK]

I'm afraid your PS4 analogy doesn't hold water, and I'll point out the most egregious reason: Fifa 14 won't be insisting rather loudly and at times rather violently that it's the One True Game, the only way to use your PS4 is by playing Fifa 14.

 

[LeMansAid]

Then by my fault or yours, you've missed the point completely. Fifa could make those claims, but that would do nothing to implicate PS4.

 

[Scaff]

Dredging a little here, yes.
I notice that you had to embellish with "ifs" to be able to answer yes.

The word if is kind of given in a hypothetical situation, as such I fail to see your point?

Now you do seem to be implying that its use weakens the hypothetical example in some way, odd then that you use the same word frequently in your reply, which by your own logic weakens your point.

So either its a non-point (in which case why raise it at all) or your own logic invalidates your own reply?

I also noticed that you pre-ordered a PS4. When it arrives and you play the games available, will you judge PS4 as good or bad based on how good or bad the games are? Will you deem PS4 to be as valid as the worst game available to play on it, as many anti-theists (including the ones that call themselves atheists) judge the concept of God based on the worst behaving religion? Or will PS4 be its own entity? Something that may be represented both extremely well and extremely poorly by it's games?

If God exists, religion attaches itself to God. Not the other way around. The pivot point of course is The Bible in the case of Christianity, but even for the people believing that it was written by God itself, they seem to generally believe that it is open to interpretation. That there are representatives and metaphors used, that can be interpreted in many ways. Then, if we were to view The Bible as God inspired, but written by humans within the context of a particular culture, all bets are off really.

Some issues with your analogy, firstly the PS4 can have the following proven to a scientific standard:

• The PS4 exists
• The rules to which the PS4 operate exist
• The affect those rules affect the output exist.

Now that aside (and that alone is enough to cause issues with the analogy), the PS4 doesn't exist in the world of gaming on its own, so we could say that the PC is the Jewish god, the PS4 is the Christian god and the XBone is the Muslim god. They all have religious texts (software in your analogy) and these religious texts while looking fundamentally the same (say again FIFA) are all actually different in numerous ways. The reason why they are all different in numerous ways is because the 'gods' all require them to operate in a slightly different way to 'work' with that god (while these machines are all similar in coding they all have key differences).

As such the software output (religion) for each is directly influenced by the platform (god) it sits on.

As such yes judging the platform (god) by the software output (religion) is perfectly valid and done everyday (COD titles were clearly better in the 360 than on the PS3, therefore its both accurate and valid to judge the two machines based upon that - as it was a direct result of the two machines)

Oh and that's without the observation that you could argue that actually the real 'religion' in this analogy would be the OS that the machines run, not the software. The OS are the rules (religious text) that you have to follow when you wish to operate on that platform (god). Stick a PC copy of FIFA in a PS4 or XBone and not a lot (apart from a read error) will happen.

Either way the analogy doesn't support your argument.

Going further, people can believe in a Christian God without believing that The Bible had anything to do with God.

That would not make them Christians.

So going back to a question that you asked: "So how does one go about separating God from religion?" Well, they don't. They're separate by default.

Your own analogy doesn't support that.

Going back further again, my assertion still stands: Explaining the idea of attacking the existence of God with a rationale of rectifying the horrible things that individuals within religions are responsible for is either misguided or false. At the very least God would be third in line after 1. the individual, and 2. the religion.

So if Fifa 14 on PS4 is terrible, can I assume that you'll think that it's sensible for people to insist that PS4 must be at fault, rather than insist that Fifa 15 must be done better? Which would be the more logical plan of attack, and which would be "misguided"?

*the original conversation begun on page 398

Which again assumes that the PS4 and its version of FIFA is the only one (a rather Christian trait of the one true god shining through from the religious texts) and its not, again your own analogy doesn't support this.


It is however all an aside as no gods exist and are simply a construct of people who wish to exert control over others (and as such the belief in the deity and the texts surrounding that belief are utterly linked), in the case of Christianity it the result of a bronze age tribe stating that the sun god they favour is the only 'real one', going on a bloody campaign of persecution of anyone who disagrees and establishing a set of tribal rules. Which then gets merged with a range of disparate texts written a good 200 years after the death(s) of a person who may or may not have existed (and may have been numerous people), by a group of men interested fundamentally in maintain control over others.

It is historically and anthropologically fascinating (to me at least), but has no bearing on the creation of the universe.

 

[Famine]

Obviously, everyone has their beliefs and basis for them.

It seems that accepting this isn't the case is really difficult for you...

I believe that everyone has a need to believe in something.

I don't believe you

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It seems that accepting this isn't the case is really difficult for you.

No, its not difficult at all.
Although, surely it appears otherwise.
Challenging and debating beliefs is not to be confused with acceptance of.
Beliefs, likewise are a dynamic, or subject to change, so there is always a case to be made on that basis.
Particularly, on this subject.

No, utterly in an utter and complete sense. Anybody who has ever been killed because of Christianity (and that number is surely in the millions), is permanently dead. There's nothing temporary at all about losing your life. And don't try and paint over it with some rubbish about eternal afterlife making up for it. That dismissive attitude towards our precious and fleeting time on this rock is one of the most wretched things about religion.

No, it's one of the wretched consequences of having Dominion and free-will choice.
Undoubtedly, the cost is very great indeed.

If this is all truly "god's creation," then it failed this so-called test of perfection the first time someone's life was forfeit to it, and it continues to fail with every additional death as well.

Absolutely.
But as with everything else, it has it's time and season.
It's not permanent.

I assume you mean sin? Right, Christianity is the only religion in the world with a concept of sin, and the only one that offers some sort of salvation for its righteous followers.

Thats correct.

 

[Famine]

It's an assertion you keep making, despite being challenged on it every time you do.

The very concept of atheism is not having beliefs - at least in the field of theology, though rational atheism tends to apply to all aspects of the atheist's life. A rational atheist generally has no beliefs of any kind and acts only on information and rationalisation.

The fact you continue making the assertion indicates you can't accept that it's not true.

 

[Dotini]

Last night the BBC ran a segment on religion, and at one point they made a potentially important distinction between belief and faith.

 

[Imari]

Last night the BBC ran a segment on religion, and at one point they made a potentially important distinction between belief and faith.

Would you like to share this distinction with the probably large number of people who didn't see it/don't get BBC?

 

[Dotini]

Would you like to share this distinction with the probably large number of people who didn't see it/don't get BBC?

Yes, I would like to, but due to my memory etc., I probably could not do it justice. It was an intellectual discussion with a theologian and a scientist involved.

The gist of it was that scientists and engineers - really all people - must operate on conscious, rational beliefs of various kinds. But the believer in God, or Jesus as the redeemer and Son of God, as the case may be, operates on a faith that is based on something more personal, internal, experiential and inchoate. Something that is impervious to rational argument, as we have seen.

I guess this is why religion should probably be a personal matter, and not a public mandate. At least in my world.

 

[huskeR32]

If this is all truly "god's creation," then it failed this so-called test of perfection the first time someone's life was forfeit to it, and it continues to fail with every additional death as well.

Absolutely.

So you're acknowledging that god is imperfect? Then what's the point of believing in him/her/it?

Thats correct.

You're serious? You really think Christianity is even remotely unique in its teachings? Have you ever made an even cursory attempt to learn about other religions around the world?

 

[Danoff]

The gist of it was that scientists and engineers - really all people - must operate on conscious, rational beliefs of various kinds. But the believer in God, or Jesus as the redeemer and Son of God, as the case may be, operates on a faith that is based on something more personal, internal, experiential and inchoate. Something that is impervious to rational argument, as we have seen.

I think this is an attempt to get around the colloquial use of "belief" and a technical use of "belief". What most people say when they use the word "belief" or "believe" is "suspect" or "expect".

"I believe I'll go outside" = "I expect to be outside in a few minutes, if all goes according to plan."
"I believe you're right" = "I suspect you're right"
"I believe the bridge will hold" = "I expect the bridge to withstand the load since the load is less than the value used in finite element analysis of the structure, and the material used has been tested to withstand more tension, compression, or sheer strain or torque than will be borne by any individual member under that, larger, tested load".

None of those are the technical definition of "believe". To "believe" something is to consider it true or factual. In none of those uses does the person actually think that it is true, they are using "believe" to mean the opposite, that they are not certain that something is true. "Believe" is a wiggle word in these cases. Consider the following statements:

"I believe you're right"
"You are right"

Which one of those statements is stronger? The 2nd one. And yet to someone who truly believes you are right, those statements are the same.

So when you say:

The gist of it was that scientists and engineers - really all people - must operate on conscious, rational beliefs of various kinds.

What I "believe" you mean is:

The gist of it was that scientists and engineers - really all people - must operate on conscious, rational conclusions of various kinds given insufficient data or proof to actually know for certain.

What a religious person means when they say I "believe" in God is:

I know for a fact that god is real. I know it more than I know anything else in my life.

This is the use of the term that Famine is using when he says:

A rational atheist generally has no beliefs of any kind and acts only on information and rationalisation.

 

[Exorcet]

No, it's one of the wretched consequences of having Dominion and free-will choice.
Undoubtedly, the cost is very great indeed.

Ignoring that free will has nothing to do with it, if this is God's idea of free will, why does he suddenly decide to trample all over these rules as soon as someone dies?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It's an assertion you keep making, despite being challenged on it every time you do.

The very concept of atheism is not having beliefs - at least in the field of theology, though rational atheism tends to apply to all aspects of the atheist's life. A rational atheist generally has no beliefs of any kind and acts only on information and rationalisation.

The fact you continue making the assertion indicates you can't accept that it's not true.

You just put it this way:

I don't believe you

We've been here before.
No beliefs is a completely false concept.
If there is no belief in anything, there is no nothing, Science included.
Information and rationalisation?
Both are limited empowerments.
Not to mention they both require belief.
In a dynamic enviroment, it's totally absurd.
Belief is a foundational, essential for life.
Everyone employs it, including you.

So you're acknowledging that god is imperfect? Then what's the point of believing in him/her/it?

Thats a false assumption.
GOD and GOD's creation are two different entities.

You're serious? You really think Christianity is even remotely unique in its teachings? Have you ever made an even cursory attempt to learn about other religions around the world?

Yes, but not extensively.
Thus far, I see do's and Don'ts, and treating the symptoms, and thats all.

Ignoring that free will has nothing to do with it, if this is God's idea of free will, why does he suddenly decide to trample all over these rules as soon as someone dies?

To the contrary, he's playing by the rules all the way.