-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why do you believe in god?
- Thread starter BTRA
- Start date
- Status
Powerslave
Banned
I hate religion I'm so cool.
megashock5
Member
I can some it up with this quote from Kurt Vonnegut...
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
megashock5 said:
And Da Vinci apparently said his thumb was all the proof he needed. It's funny how human beings throughout the past 2000 years have been so self deriding, as if nothing beautiful can be natural or come from us. I guess that's why, or because, religious people believe in original sin and feel the need to be so apologetic.
Chris Interactive
Member
I believe in God mainly b/c that is how I was raised. However, that does not change my views on God. I still believe in God though I have moved out and no longer have to worry about pressure from my parents. I do not go to church b/c I feel organized religion has corrupted the word of God. I believe in what I believe and that's really about it. If anyone ever showed many in irrefutable truth that God did not exist, than yes, I would have to say that I would dismiss my beliefs. Although, there is one saying that a preacher did say to me that really sticks out in my mind for why I still follow the faith.
"Even if their is not a God, was living a Christian life all that bad. What would you have really missed out on?"
"Even if their is not a God, was living a Christian life all that bad. What would you have really missed out on?"
Mango Positive
Member
I do not believe in god.
Religious people see a need for a god based on the complexity of life.
Non-religious people believe that placing an equally complex god into the equation as an explanation for the complexity of life is simply moving the goal posts.
Resurrection, water to wine, parting the Red Sea... these are all things we know to be "impossible", in that there is no credible evidence that any of these things has ever happened. Miracles like this are also a major part of most religious texts. Where I would be required to jump and stay for you to believe that I could levitate, you are willing to accept without a second thought that these miracles from religious texts did occur with no evidence but an unfounded belief that the text is evidence of its content. When you hone your problem solving / logic skills to an advanced stage, there is no difference in the absurdity of the claim of an all powerful creator, and an intergalactic Starbucks made of cotton candy orbiting Neptune (except that we might eventually disprove the Starbucks).
Don't get me wrong... I'd love to live in paradise when I die and see all of my loved ones again. That just sounds like the sort of tripe the elite might feed me to keep me from killing them and taking their shit.
Religious people see a need for a god based on the complexity of life.
Non-religious people believe that placing an equally complex god into the equation as an explanation for the complexity of life is simply moving the goal posts.
Resurrection, water to wine, parting the Red Sea... these are all things we know to be "impossible", in that there is no credible evidence that any of these things has ever happened. Miracles like this are also a major part of most religious texts. Where I would be required to jump and stay for you to believe that I could levitate, you are willing to accept without a second thought that these miracles from religious texts did occur with no evidence but an unfounded belief that the text is evidence of its content. When you hone your problem solving / logic skills to an advanced stage, there is no difference in the absurdity of the claim of an all powerful creator, and an intergalactic Starbucks made of cotton candy orbiting Neptune (except that we might eventually disprove the Starbucks).
Don't get me wrong... I'd love to live in paradise when I die and see all of my loved ones again. That just sounds like the sort of tripe the elite might feed me to keep me from killing them and taking their shit.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
in a state where there is no time, and that all probabilities would manifest themselves in an instance with no linear time passage, surely effectively the probability of everything being possible before the inseption of time is 1?
and perhaps this just happens to be the 451 billionth expand/collapse of the universe, it's observable simply because of fluke, space time is a fluke, our existance is fluke, the whole universe might be an infinitely unlikely fluke... perhaps there is nothing truly magical about any of this?
yeah, "we can't explain this therefore... " - it doesn't wash.
Mango Positive said:
There absolutely is a difference. For example, Umberto Eco, despite not really believing in god, said in a book on semiotics that god may simply be existence itself, so basic and so fundamental that it is we who are too complex to understand it. Now anyone who really understands logic will know you can't quantify existence itself or treat it as a predicate meaning god in this sense would not be equivalent to whatever the fuck you just described, or a teapot. I'm always bewildered why Russell used that example, I don't think he meant people to treat the two as analogous, but simply to show falsification is more practical than verification.
Nexus Zero
Member
It's hardly valid to not believe that the universe could "just exist" and then serve up God as an explanation and then give him the ability to "just exist", or to believe that the Universe is so complex that someone must have created it and then say the creator is bigger than the universe.
Nexus Zero
Member
Powerslave said:
Fix'd
Edit: 20-min double post. Nice.
Earthstrike
Member
Mash said:
I hear a lot of my friends talking about the notion that natural phenomenon constitute the existence of god. That god is 1/2 m v^2. That god is all matter and energy. This does nothing but label the entirety of known phenomenon as a deity. What I find weird is that this belief then lends way for people to believe in things like the parting of the red sea and adam and eve. Would it be any different if I ascribed the label Zeus to that same matter and energy and then used that to claim other scientific impossibilites?
When most people talk about God, they talk about a deity which has the capacity to intervene in human circumstance and affect outcomes in his own ways. This "naturalistic" approach to God just seems to be the manner by which people who accept the principles of the scientific method reconcile their logic and knowledge with either familial or social circumstances.
Earthstrike said:
Just to be clear, I agree, I don't believe in god. I just think there's dogma on all sides of this issue and I try my hardest not to fall into the traps. The ideas of god as you described as harmless though, I can't really see people committing heinous acts over an equation.
I refuse to believe that everything, you, me, emotions, life, the world etc. was created by chance, and things just ended being like they are.
I also like the thought that no matter how shitty life gets, I will always have someone to turn to.
That said, organized religion is not what it should be, i.e. a celebration of how awesome life really is. And I don't believe that what the Bible says is the absolute truth, and I don't agree with the Christian view on many things, like homosexuality.
I also like the thought that no matter how shitty life gets, I will always have someone to turn to.
That said, organized religion is not what it should be, i.e. a celebration of how awesome life really is. And I don't believe that what the Bible says is the absolute truth, and I don't agree with the Christian view on many things, like homosexuality.
I believe in God because there is balance and purpose in nature, and because I know that there are things that happen that are beyond what we consider natural.
I was raised a Catholic, but like others, I don't like going to church. With that said, I do believe Jesus was the son of God, and if I was God I probably would have also chosen that time and place to make an influence on the world.
We can get into my catholic beliefs, and what I interpret, but that's for another thread.
I was raised a Catholic, but like others, I don't like going to church. With that said, I do believe Jesus was the son of God, and if I was God I probably would have also chosen that time and place to make an influence on the world.
We can get into my catholic beliefs, and what I interpret, but that's for another thread.
Nander said:
The first bit is a dogmatic belief, in my eyes anyway.
The latter part, I don't think a belief system involving god can ever be as life-affirming as one that does not posit something above and beyond reality that is accesible and present right now. It's the axial model of reality problem where people have always tried to transcend the world in some way through the mind, religion, intoxication or whatever. Once you exclude the possibility of there being anything but this world and this reality then we can truly affirm life and stop with-holding in whatever way.
Bulla564 said:
I dunno, this seems like an appropriate thread. I, for one, would be interested in reading your views anyway, I'm off sick so I've got nothing better to do.
I believe in God because I haven't heard a compelling enough counter-argument. People will say that mankind evolved from a primordial soup, but can't explain how; the universe was created by an exploding lump of matter, but nobody knows where the matter came from. I find God to be the more logical conclusion in explaining the origins of life.
Now, I'm not a creationist, I'm more of a deist. In other words, God created the universe and largely lets it run its own course, based on its own rules (i.e. science). So to that degree, I "believe in" evolution and the big bang theory, but I also believe that they are (quite easily) reconcilable with belief in God.
Now, I'm not a creationist, I'm more of a deist. In other words, God created the universe and largely lets it run its own course, based on its own rules (i.e. science). So to that degree, I "believe in" evolution and the big bang theory, but I also believe that they are (quite easily) reconcilable with belief in God.
Mango Positive
Member
Mash said:
Objection, your honor! The defense is changing the definition of "god" (or assuming that I can't take the generally accepted definition? I can't tell.)
I would not label "physics", "energy", or "existence" as "god". I think you have to work with the definitions in the ancient texts that describe gods when debating gods. The only concept of god we know, as described in the texts, IS (are?) as equally absurd as the intergalactic Starbucks example, unless you take the opinion that the texts were mankind's semi-retarded interpretation of extra-terrestrial visitation, which I believe to be plausible.
Mash said:
You certainly seem to be level headed about it which is incredibly refreshing on the internet let alone GAF.
I think the main issue is that people want an objective purpose just like they want an objective reality. And objectivity can only be derived and observed, not created unless by an agency. Just because post modernism has thrown up its arms in the pursuit of such things does not mean that the people can live on without believing in it. You hear the term "objective reality" thrown around and even something as absurd as "objective journalism".
If you honestly apply simple reductionism to most of the ideals of man you see things like purpose, beauty, justice, equality don't objectively exist, at least in this Universe. They are all just social constructs of the intellect. Whether meaningful or tragic, the decision of man to deny this and continue to care is one of the more interesting things to me.
I don't think reducing our purpose to genetic survival machines has a long term prospect for a species as the intellect begins to have more sway than the biology. I don't think its a problem we have to worry about in our lifetime but removing the possibility of objective purpose from our lives could have difficult consequences for a species trying to play an active role in the Universe.
While at some level, the reality of the universe is bound in concepts beyond human understanding, I consider it a very low percentage play that going to some building every Sunday, worshipping some 2000 year old middle eastern bloke and following a 1600 year old book of parables and anecdotes is the key.
That may come across as harsh and oversimplified, but that is essentially how I see it.
If there is some sort of omnipotent force behind the incredible brilliance that is our universe, I think that the idea that we can conceptualize it into human frameworks of understanding is arrogant and delusional.
That may come across as harsh and oversimplified, but that is essentially how I see it.
If there is some sort of omnipotent force behind the incredible brilliance that is our universe, I think that the idea that we can conceptualize it into human frameworks of understanding is arrogant and delusional.
Powerslave
Banned
Religion causes damage all over the world am I cool for noticing this yet am I accepted yet into the cool kids club I don't believe in god and am gonna be very vocal about this every chance I get.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
Powerslave said:
At least I've never had a non-religious person knock on my door trying to convert me.
Mash said:
Again, an excellent post.
Of course the problem ultimately lies in defining what "this realty" is. Furthemore, I, in a pragmatist sort of way, think people as a whole just want a better deal.
If they can get a good enough subjective meaning without God then I honestly believe they would take it. Like many ideologies, God is a placeholder in which the beliefs have some sort of "objective" grounding. Moral relatavism and all that.
Mango Positive said:
I've got to leave the internet and go do boring real world stuff (noooo) so this has t be short but I was just hammering home the point about interpretation. Again though, if god was "existence", or something equally as nebulous, who on Earth would want to worship this, what would be the point. I agree entirely anyway, we can label all manner of things god, but I think Eco's point was the ubiquity of the concept of god might be expainable by thinking of it as existence.
Grug said:
Spot on. But hey, we got do something to pass the time and Anime has taken a turn for the worse lately.
I actually enjoy many traditional religions so I don't think they are waste of time but I treat them the same way I think anybody should treat a personal hobby, by keeping it personal.
Jefferson said it best when he said it is in our lives and not our words that our religion must read.
soul creator
Member
M3wThr33 said:
I've always found it strange how some people see childbirth as a "miracle", when it's happened billions of times throughout history. Heh.
funkmastergeneral
Banned
I believe in God because when I was little my mommy brainwashed me into believing there is an invisible man in the sky watching my every move.
Ela Hadrun
Probably plays more games than you
Evonus said:
Well, if I had had a different life, I might not want to.
That's my point to the people sputtering about the Neptunian cotton candy factory and so forth:
Some religious people have had different experiences than you which you cannot verify or falsify because you have not had them and they are not objectively replicable.
Sure, some believe because it's habit. But crazy shit happens in this world.
It also makes me sad that Christianity is synonymous with religion for so many folks, and for a lot of those folks aggressive Evangelical Christianity is the only kind. It's a big world out there. Go read the Dao De Jing or the Ramayana or something. Take a college class. Hell, pick up one of those pop-Kabbalah books on the discount shelf at Barnes and Noble.
There is a lot to learn about humanity; we are not so bland.
Himuro said:
That's the thing. No matter how disgusting or annoying they are, we would all be drowning in shit if they weren't around. You can break things down to a cell, and go up to full ecosystems. Things in nature have their own purpose for life to be sustainable. The ones that don't seem to have been accidentally mutated (because things naturally degrade according to physics).
As far as WHAT/WHO is God, I actually DO believe in a loving God, who would do no good in giving us direct evidence of his existence. If we knew he was out there, we would worship him out of duty/fear (actually many christians do), instead of having enough faith that we want to do good to others, purely based on what we cannot see (a.k.a good that comes from within us). That's why when Jesus said "Believe in me, and you will be saved" it was not for christians to chant his name, scream "I BELIEVE!!", feel the healing power of Jesus, and BAM you are saved. He meant for us to believe what he is saying is true, and for us to try to stop going along with our human nature of being self-serving assholes.
As far as being filled with the "Holy Spirit", it is not waiting around for little fire tongues to come down, and for us to start talking gibberish in weird languages (I HATE IT WHEN THEY DO THIS AT MASS, as if they are possessed with the Holy Spirit or some crap). I believe that there is good and bad energy, and good energy simply makes you feel good, which translates into you spreading happiness to others. Being filled with the holy Spirit is nothing more than a feeling of joy, which if everyone had it in the world, it would be an unbelievable place.
And why, with a loving God, is there so much shit in the world? Because humans cause their own shit mostly, directly or indirectly. The rest is nature and its laws. If God intervened every time someone was going to blow up a bomb, or steal a purse, what is the point of faith and choosing what you want to believe? it goes back to my first point.
Grug said:
To be fair, evolution is based on billions of coincidences, of mutations happening in the right cell, at the right time, with the right environmental pressure to naturally select that mutation. That counts for all those mutations that had no real effect, but accumulated precisely in the right way to create a complex system down the line.
It's as much luck as Charlie getting that money on that day, and going to that store, to get that last golden ticket. A scientist can claim that scientifically it was bound to happen (someone was bound to get that last Golden ticket), yet for Charlie, it was pure luck.
Bulla564 said:
'Coincidence' has nothing to do with it. Evolution doesn't have a defined path or destination.
The organisms whose mutations were conducive to survival, survived. The rest died.
Its not about luck, co-incidence, fate, or any other concept constructed by humans in their attempts to find 'meaning'.
Exactly, and when I realized this, I stopped fighting with anyone over religion or lack of religion. That firm grip I have on the seemingly universal ideas that govern my beliefs can apply only to me and my situation, and I while I might empathize or try to understand the feelings and experiences of others that have led them to their various conclusions, I cannot have lived their lives.Ela Hadrun said:
John Dunbar
correct about everything
What's with the shit about "wanting to believe"? Either you believe or you don't. Nobody can choose what they believe.
I'd want to believe I can fly, but I won't be jumping off a fucking cliff.
Nature and laws God must have made. Diseases and natural disasters really do sound like gifts from a loving God.
I'd want to believe I can fly, but I won't be jumping off a fucking cliff.
Bulla564 said:
Nature and laws God must have made. Diseases and natural disasters really do sound like gifts from a loving God.
- Status