Do You Believe In God?

[jimited]

AND WE ARE ALL JUSTIFIED IN WHAT WE BELIEVE.

The jihadists who brought down the World Trade Center did it because they believed they are fighting for the muslim cause in the name of religion, I fail to see how this is justified, this is just one example.

I also believe in God, because I have traveled the Crow Creek Pass in Alaska, and I was in such awe, that I knew there must be a God.

If god was that powerful and created this place in Alaska then he must be a sadomasochist because of the MILLIONS of people who suffer and die each and every day through famine, genocide, disease and natural disasters. according to the bible he created the WHOLE earth not just some of it so why did he create land that is hospitable to life yet people have no choice but to endure living in these places where most suffering takes place? And god created ALL living things so why did he create germs, viruses and disease?

 

[Aalo]

If god was that powerful and created this place in Alaska then he must be a sadomasochist because of the MILLIONS of people who suffer and die each and every day through famine, genocide, disease and natural disasters. according to the bible he created the WHOLE earth not just some of it so why did he create land that is hospitable to life yet people have no choice but to endure living in these places where most suffering takes place? And god created ALL living things so why did he create germs, viruses and disease?

Famine can be seen mostly as something other people cause for others, because here on earth we have enough food for everyone, but not all can afford that due to stupid policies. It's also that this christian god doesn't work alone, but the trick is that he lets people to choose between doing good or wrong - without hawing to directly suffer from their choices instantly, but maybe later in life or only while in Hell after their death. That's just not much motivation for many people. Christianity is built pretty well so that things like these are covered up. God doesn't want to interfere in human lives, because after all, all he needs is us to ask for forgiveness never mind how much evil we have done before. So it can be seen as ok for letting tons of people dying while waiting some individuals pleading at some point.
I can't recall if it was god who created diseases or did he just let them be created by satan, but here he also just asks us for being able to plead for him.

But yeah, I never got christianity, and my mother's funeral reminded me about it recently. She was terminally ill for years, suffering from day to day, and all that priest could deliver to relief the grief of my family, was telling the message that "Ms. R. didn't suffer alone. God didn't end her misery because of being sadistic, but for loving her so much that there had to be place prepared for her until she was ready.". Ready not to suffer anymore? Well that's something I'd never be able to resort in.

Once again while I don't find much good in christianity, I believe it might not have anything to do with anyone individual feel of god. If they feel something, that's how it is and it's their own personal matter.

 

[silent ABAB]

I really think there should be a religious debate thread instead of this kind of stuff happening, just saying.

 

[Ylva]

I really think there should be a religious debate thread instead of this kind of stuff happening, just saying.

Sounds like a flame war in the making. If the Mods are okay with it, I suppose you can start one, with a disclaimer in the first post stating that atheism is not part of the debate or something.

 

[Aalo]

But isn't this already one? The way I see it debating is exactly what is going on in here and according to first message is why this one was created in the first place.

If we started a new thread most messages from this one should be transferred to it any way from beginning of the very first message. Maybe we could just add a poll with simple yes/no/other answering options in it to this thread so that those who want to answer without getting dragged to to conversation can also participate.
There is also older religion thread somewhere. I think it's no use creating new ones for the same purpose again and again.

 

[Douglas_MacNeill]

I've been shocked by how many Aspie's on this forum I've seen who believe in God. I always thought it was my Asperger's syndrome that made me think very rationally, logically and straightforward, and was why I'm an atheist. I'll give a reason why I don't believe, and I'd like to hear why you do or don't too.

To put it short, I don't believe in God because I feel the theory of God has many rational flaws and doesn't seem logical. The ways Christians describe him seem to contradict each other and no one ever gets "damned to hell", for example, when someone says they are. I don't also believe in Heaven or Hell for the same reason, along with all other supernatural things. Another reason is there's simply no suitable proof. When Christians say "The Universe" or "The world around you" is proof, that's bullsh*t. There are billions and trillions of possibilities to the causation of the Universe and everything in it. One cannot simply attribute it to one being. It's completely illogical. Until I've seen an appropriate proof, I shall continue to not be able to believe in God's existence, as there's no logical reason to without proof. And it doesn't work the way that some Christians think, which is that "Atheists can't prove he doesn't exist". You need proof of his existence first, otherwise he either doesn't exist, or you can't know if he does. You can't prove his existence by the lack of evidence of his non-existence, and anyway, there's quite a bit of evidence for him not existing.

Anyway, after all that "venting" as people call it, what are your views?

Believing in God? Not in the conservative evangelical sense of the term as we know it
in the US or Canada, no. Having said that, the opportunity I have had to question my
faith--an opportunity that is partially the consequence of my Aspie background--has
led me to a deeper understanding of being a Christian and being an Anglican.

 

[Peter A.]

I've been shocked by how many Aspie's on this forum I've seen who believe in God.

...and I'm shocked that you are shocked.

To put it short, I don't believe in God because I feel the theory of God has many rational flaws and doesn't seem logical. The ways Christians describe him

You seem to have made the mistake here of equating 'belief in God' with 'being a Christian'; the two are, of course, not the same. The logical mind is what compels one to accept the reality of G/god, for the concept is without flaws and explains a range of mysteries for which the 'rational' alternative of non-belief is inadequate and absurd.

G/god is 'real' in the sense that the concept itself has validity, this validity being based upon a) the self-sufficiency and logical coherence of the idea, b) the acceptance of the reality that there can be nothing in nature that is, or can be, responsible for its own existence, c) the problem of infinite regress that one encounters whenever one tries to explain the existence of the cosmos via purely mechanistic and blind physical forces, d) the need to account for the comprehensibility, consistency and coherence of reality itself, a factor that cannot be accounted for if one believes that all there is is ultimately pointless and without purpose e) the anthropic principle, and f) the existence of non-physical phenomena, such as qualia, consciousness, abstract mathematical ideas and ideas in general, and aesthetic appreciation, among others, that are accepted to be real but which cannot be accounted for if one believes reality to be pointless and absurd.

God, at least as I understand this idea, is not the anthropomorphised deity of the Old Testament, or any of the other books of religion and mythology. God is not a 'thing', 'being' or 'object' like any other entity that one may come across within our reality, but the ultimate foundation and source of that reality and, as John Lennox once put it (paraphrasing), 'the ground or source of being as such'. All that exists within our cosmos up to and including the cosmos itself, are contingent entities that require an explanation above and beyond what they are in order to account for their existence, and in order to avoid the problem of infinite regress that one encounters whenever one postulates another contingent entity as the source of all there is (ex. a vacuum, gravity, singularity), which gets us nowhere, one must acknowledge that the source of all that we know of must be eternal (in the sense of transcending and not being bound by time), non-contingent, non-physical, self-sufficient and self-evident.

I had discussions with a number of members (mainly atheists) over at LinkedIn about this very topic, in a couple of their discussion groups, but I did not successfully make any 'converts'.

 

[Peter A.]

I've come to learn over the years that there is absolutely nothing, in heaven or on earth, that can ever convince a dedicated atheist of the reality of God. They keep asking for evidence or proof of one kind or another, but seriously, even if they came face to face with God they would still not believe. They would probably rationalise the experience away with some lame 'explanation' like, 'oh, it was just an illusion brought on by my ingestion of some substance'.

 

[Peter A.]

The point about all physical phenomena being contingent in some way (i.e. have an origin, be integrated with and/or otherwise dependent upon its environment, exist in relation to something else, be subject to the passage of time etc.), which in turn raises issues about the universe as a whole (i.e. its origin, how it came to be). If one postulates a prior universe from which ours sprang, then one has to explain the prior universe, and if one makes the claim that this prior one came from one prior to that, - infinite regress. In order to solve this issue, one needs to postulate the existence of a causal factor that is not in any way subject to the laws of nature.
How can that which is inherently meaningless, without purpose or function, and purely accidental, provide that which it does not intrinsically have (i.e. purpose, meaning, function etc.)? It doesn't make sense to say that a meaningless existence, which is what atheists believe life to be, can provide meaning. How?

 

[Gomendosi]

Mmmm, I could postulate that people that believe in a god or gods, by logical extension should also believe in the existence of extraterrestrial beings, of which, “god” is clearly one.

But I digress for comic effect...

Seriously though:
Please keep to topic, have a pleasant conversation and read the rules if you are stuck on how to respond to an inflammatory post.
Also, mods are here to help so don’t hesitate to contact one rather than have an argument, this isn’t “that kind” of forum ; ]

 

[Ylva]

I do not know you, but you have come to conclusions that oppose reality, and so it is fairly obvious that your premises are at fault. I would like to point out that, as much as you dislike that I don't care about your God, your calling my life pointless is every bit as rude. I'd say more rude, due to the fact that my life is more personal and more real to me than your god could possibly be to you, but you might see things differently, so hey.

Gomendosi is right: this thread isn't for figuring out the origins of life, the universe and everything. It is merely for stating our belief or non-belief in gods. Any further discussion is probably off topic, if not completely out of line.

And no, I don't mean to flame you. I just took issue with your listing of evidentiary/explanatory factors than did not in fact prove or explain anything.

Edit: okay, "off topic" was the wrong thing to say.

 

[Geordie]

I believe in God because simply put, He is there all the time for me so far.

 

[BK111]

I am of my own views as to the belief in god(s). On the one hand, I understand that there are self-evident claims in the end that point us all back to a unexplained beginning. This unexplained beginning can be of many things--god(s), collisions between particles, etc.--but I have to ask if it really can and should be explained. Science can only shed light so far on the reason of our existence; perhaps the reason of our existence stemmed from culture or from the behavior of other human beings at the time of our conception. There are many more reasons that can be said to explain "the beginning." But if "the beginning" we look for lies in what first caused the universe to expand, then we will be lost by wonder and by curiosity. This is the nature of human beings. To wonder and to be curious, to establish relationships between different parts in order to understand the bigger picture, this is our nature. I do not think with this nature we will find a definitive beginning of the cosmos; I say this for two reasons. (1) We will always be making scientific discoveries and shedding light on new particles and on new mechanics in which the world is governed. (2) Each generation can interpret the scientific work of the past differently, and even the mythologies and religions that others have proclaimed to explain the origin of things or why certain things have come into being, and this need for interpretation will always take precedent before science; people look for a reason important to them to say that the world came into being in this and this manner.

But on the other hand I understand that the idea of a God at times can have a negative effect on a person. When a person looks to a God to be there on every occasion for a person, then this is when the idea of a God becomes dangerous. The idea of God is supposed to connect other people together--look at all of the communities established around God and Gods, for example, churches--not necessarily make one person walk alone in life and hold every achievement up to God. We extend ourselves to God in everyday life sometimes out of loneliness, a loneliness that seems to stem out of the need to find people to tell their lives to. Now one can say that he or she is not lonely, but in the end we are all to some degree lonely. We tell someone more than another about our lives. We can coincide more in one person than another person, thus it can be said that we are less lonely with the first person than the second person since we can tell the first person more than the second person. And if we are around people all the time that make us lonely, make us more uncomfortable to tell things to people publicly or even in private, then I would suspect that God came into being to assist us in our loneliness or the difference degrees of loneliness we inevitably experience in our lives. I think the idea of God can have the potentiality of detracting from human relationships in this regard; also, different communities will form with different Gods, and sometimes cause tension and many fights, and this can detract from one's relationships to people in other groups. The reason for this detraction here is because two people can have grown up with two different senses of rights and wrongs, so to have them conflict with each other can cause people to not get along.

I will say, though, that these are problems I can possibly see happening to some people. I do not think the majority of people would have these problems. People develop many reasons to rely on God; I suppose what I am getting at, to be short, is that the reason(s) in which one is connected with God should be of good reasons as available to a person. If there are not enough good reasons or enough motivations, then sure be an atheist. Or be whatever spiritually. Or be of something of your own beliefs. One should have careful consideration as to why they believe in a God and as how far to believe; I think the belief in a God can be overconsuming without recognition in other aspects of life, and while religion / "religious placement" (where one falls, whether of the religions, whether of the irreligions, whether of spirituality, whether of other beliefs) proves ever more important to people in our modern age, it has the potentiality of splitting us and dicing us up when we do not need to create further tension between each other. And it has the potentiality of aggravating our loneliness, making God the one true friend and beloved we are wedded; let us be sure with God that we make a relationship to Him or Her that allows us to rely on Him, but also make Ourselves rely on Ourselves too, not being motivated by God to act but Ourselves, and let God be one who people can share without incessantly trying to convert a person, but rather let Him be shared by the people who believe or want to believe in that God. Let God strengthen us together and weaken us together. Let God not conflict with Gods. Let God be, the only person not in motion with us that will look at us and praise human progress and our attempts to find our natures again; let God be proud of all humans, and let him, if it must, be the Gods or the Everything that holds All in place. Let God be to the person what he becomes to that person.

 

[pacman]

There is one thing that will make an intellectually honest atheist into a believer. It is a coherent definition of God that can be empirically tested and falsified, plus actual evidence for this. This would have to be something that cannot be explained by anything else. It sounds like the atheists that you have encountered have a much higher standard of evidence than you. If what you have presented as evidence for God can be rationalized away or explained by other means, then it is not good evidence.

Until there is an actual coherent definition of God, talking about evidence for the existence of God is meaningless anyways, which makes atheism an incredibly justified position.

 

[Ylva]

I hold to the maxim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[Loomis]

:unsure:You cannot empirically prove God's existence so if that is the criterion you require to believe in God you have your answer. There is no need to expand your argument. But you must also understand that using such a strict scientific empirical criterion as your only acceptable definition of truth makes you an extreme reductionist. Wittgenstein carried this to its logical conclusion and the end result is a postmodern deconstructionist philosophy that essentially states we cannot justify any narrative explanation of the world. John Paul Sartre pursuing a similar line of thought concluded that life is absurd and the only rational response to the world is despair. I choose to believe otherwise.

There are numerous philosophical arguments for God's existence but they remain just that: arguments; they are not proofs.

My personal choice to believe in God rests upon the philosophical arguments of the American Philosophical School of Pragmatism. The main American Philosophers of Pragmatism are Pierce, James and Dewey. The distinctive feature of Pragmatism is its peculiarly American definition of truth. Pragmatism defines truth as "what works." The seminal work that ties the pragmatist definition of truth to spirituality is William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience."

It works for me in my life to believe in God and to affiliate with a Christian Church. I chose Christianity because I live in a Western culture. Western history, literature, art, music, philosophy, etc., are all deeply infused with Christian mythology (note mythology is not fantasy and mythos contains truth just as logos does.) I accept the Bible as four thousand years of accumulated wisdom that is a multifaceted historical narrative of the Jewish and Christian view of the supernatural. Its stories are sometimes chaotic and at times produce a perverse view of how God has acted in human history but it reveals God as a loving being. There are different ways to view the Christian story. You can imagine a bloodthirsty jealous God who demands genocide and the torture of his son that he sends down to earth or you can look at the story of Abraham as God's rejection of human sacrifice and Jesus' humanity as God's complete and total expression of her love for human beings.

In my view it is absurd to consider the bible as infallible, however, it contains some amazing insights into what is sacred; you must separate the wheat from the chaff when reading the bible. If I were born in India I would be Hindu, if Tibet, a Budhist and in these cases I would search for the spiritual truth of my cultural heritage and the spirituality I would find would contain as much truth as my Christian beliefs.

It works well for me to live my life centered in Christian spirituality. Religion without spirituality is an empty shell. I value what is holy and sacred in the world and I believe God acts within human history and is knowable through prayer and meditation. It is my life-goal to discern God's will for me and to choose my actions in order to achieve what I discern as God's calling for me. This method of living keeps me out of trouble and provides a guide to living as well as profound personal meaning. It has led me to accept the spirituality of Ignatius Loyola. Ignatian spirituality considers power, riches and honors as having no value in themselves but as being useful only insofar as they help me to do God's will. I would suggest this is a very healthy way to live one's life and in my choice is worth ambition. I do not begrudge you your atheist philosophy and I fully understand an atheist can live well and act morally. It is just not what I choose to believe.

 

[Arashi222]

I am a wiccan I practice wicca. I am a pagan and believe there are those that maybe greater than us but generally mother earth and her elements that take care of us. Now I don't know if that is the Christan god or goddesses I don't know. But what I do know is that I feel safe and comfortable with my beliefs and I believe those here feel the same about theirs.

 

[pacman]

:unsure:You cannot empirically prove God's existence so if that is the criterion you require to believe in God you have your answer. There is no need to expand your argument. But you must also understand that using such a strict scientific empirical criterion as your only acceptable definition of truth makes you an extreme reductionist. Wittgenstein carried this to its logical conclusion and the end result is a postmodern deconstructionist philosophy that essentially states we cannot justify any narrative explanation of the world. John Paul Sartre pursuing a similar line of thought concluded that life is absurd and the only rational response to the world is despair. I choose to believe otherwise.

If there is a God, then it is a fundamental property of the universe, like dark energy, gravity, or electromagnetism, then one should be able to justify its existence. I mean, if someone is going to say that the universe behaves in a certain way, I'm going to say, "Show me the evidence." There is no exception. The question of whether there is a god is a question about the structure and behavior of the universe, which necessarily makes it an empirical question. That means that in order for it to be rational to believe in God, there must be testable and falsifiable evidence for the existence of God. In order for that to even happen, one is going to have to formulate a coherent definition of what God is. Until then, the notion of God is incoherent and atheism is the rational position.

Yes, I only accept strict scientific evidence when it comes to claims of how the universe works. I do not find the rational response to the world to be despair. Rather, it should be awe and wonder because we have the tools on how to figure out how the universe works. The fact that we are doing a good job at it is amazing.

There are numerous philosophical arguments for God's existence but they remain just that: arguments; they are not proofs.

There are numerous philosophical arguments refuting said arguments. Also, most modern philosophers are atheists.

My personal choice to believe in God rests upon the philosophical arguments of the American Philosophical School of Pragmatism. The main American Philosophers of Pragmatism are Pierce, James and Dewey. The distinctive feature of Pragmatism is its peculiarly American definition of truth. Pragmatism defines truth as "what works." The seminal work that ties the pragmatist definition of truth to spirituality is William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience."

I've read James before. Also, I don't accept that definition of truth when it comes to how the universe works. For that, truth is what can be verified as accurate. Claims about how the world works which cannot be empirically verified are meaningless and a priori false.

It works for me in my life to believe in God and to affiliate with a Christian Church. I chose Christianity because I live in a Western culture. Western history, literature, art, music, philosophy, etc., are all deeply infused with Christian mythology (note mythology is not fantasy and mythos contains truth just as logos does.) I accept the Bible as four thousand years of accumulated wisdom that is a multifaceted historical narrative of the Jewish and Christian view of the supernatural. Its stories are sometimes chaotic and at times produce a perverse view of how God has acted in human history but it reveals God as a loving being. There are different ways to view the Christian story. You can imagine a bloodthirsty jealous God who demands genocide and the torture of his son that he sends down to earth or you can look at the story of Abraham as God's rejection of human sacrifice and Jesus' humanity as God's complete and total expression of her love for human beings.

That seems like a rather bad reason to believe in God and choose Christianity. It literally is an appeal to majority, which is a logical fallacy. If I applied that logic to my computer usage, I'd be using some crap like Windows or OS X. Screw that. I'm going to develop my beliefs of how the world works based on empirical evidence. There really isn't any other rational way to do so. I mean, if someone says the world is a certain way and cannot justify it, why take them seriously? Also, the two interpretations of the Bible that you gave are incompatible. It's not like the Bible is an accurate work of history anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

In my view it is absurd to consider the bible as infallible, however, it contains some amazing insights into what is sacred; you must separate the wheat from the chaff when reading the bible. If I were born in India I would be Hindu, if Tibet, a Budhist and in these cases I would search for the spiritual truth of my cultural heritage and the spirituality I would find would contain as much truth as my Christian beliefs.

I agree that the Bible is not infallible. After all, it is a set of texts that people sat down and wrote. It deserves as much scrutiny as anything else. Actually, given its influence on the world, it probably deserves a lot more scrutiny.

It works well for me to live my life centered in Christian spirituality. Religion without spirituality is an empty shell. I value what is holy and sacred in the world and I believe God acts within human history and is knowable through prayer and meditation. It is my life-goal to discern God's will for me and to choose my actions in order to achieve what I discern as God's calling for me. This method of living keeps me out of trouble and provides a guide to living as well as profound personal meaning. It has led me to accept the spirituality of Ignatius Loyola. Ignatian spirituality considers power, riches and honors as having no value in themselves but as being useful only insofar as they help me to do God's will. I would suggest this is a very healthy way to live one's life and in my choice is worth ambition. I do not begrudge you your atheist philosophy and I fully understand an atheist can live well and act morally. It is just not what I choose to believe.

I don't consider spirituality a good thing at all. It is incredibly vaguely defined and is basically just another meaningless buzzword. I think that the healthiest way to live one's life is through the lens of rationality and empiricism. We know a great deal of how the universe works and how it came to be, but we don't know everything. What good is there in explaining what we do not know with ideas that cannot be justified. That not only seems like a waste of time, but detrimental to human intellect.

 

[Loomis]

Pacman, our differences are so extreme there is not even a basis for discussion. I do not agree with your criticisms of my position but I am not interested in refuting them point by point. I do not have the time nor the desire to argue. We are clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum on this question.

 

[psu2012]

I did not grow up in a religious household, but I found acceptance and love for the first time from Christians which opened me up to thinking about faith. Ill admit it was hard, really really hard for me to come to the faith, I was very stubborn, but I was treated with patience and that made all the difference. Iam now a seminary student, so yes I believe in the existence of God. For the rational part of myself, I really enjoy the proofs of God by Aquinas. Also, I dont practice the way most Christians do, Iam very anti-literal, and prefer to see the deeper meaning, which also opens up some of the contradictions.