Do you believe in God?

[Sipe]

I have a very diffcult relationship with reigion and religious people. I can to some degree understand the theïstic interpretation of the term "god" as the creator of the unierse and it's laws, a perfect watchmaker, but it baffles me how people can believe in a personally involved god, who has a clearplan for humanity or even individual persons. A divine entity who not only governs the laws of nature and physics but also of morality...
Sorry but I find these kind of thoughts to be dwnright disturbing and dangerous. The fact that these kind of beliefs have been absorbed into organisations with a great deal of power scares me even more. "Belief" itself, the assumption of concepts without any factual evidence is, in my opinion, the most dangerous thing the human mind can do. I realise that not all believers are fundamentalistic madmen who would destroy anything in their path that clashes with their fate, but the world would be much better off without religion as a whole.

Maybe I can't think rationally about this because I simply get so pissed off by the whole "you're gonna burn in hell" concept.

I agree. But sometimes religions can help. They give "reason" to live. If believing in some religion makes a person happy and a good person, that`s fine. I would be happy for that person even if I think the religion, lets say Christianity, makes no sense.

But I think people should never mess policy and religion together. Things would get pretty ugly eventually. Look at Israel and Gaza for example. I myself try and will accept every one no matter what religion they believe in. Fighting and arguing about whose religion is the "right" one is childish and waste of time.

 

[Calvert]

I realise that not all believers are fundamentalistic madmen who would destroy anything in their path that clashes with their fate

Most people tend to forget about this bit.   
@Sipe that's a good approach to take. If someone wants to follow a religion then let them. If someone doesn't then that's fine too. 

 

[Ipsen]

I also do acknowledge the human need to seek answers on metaphysical and existential questions, but there's alternatives to religion for that. But I think religion is so attractive to so many people not especially because the answers it gives are much easier to swallow, but because it provides a set of rituals pertaining to the questions at hand. Western Europe is pretty secular, and a large percentage of the new generation is atheïstic or agnostic, but the majority of those, when in need of rituals, still use the ones as prescribed in the Judeo-christian tradition. Others (like me for instance) try to distance themselves from that tradition, but they still need rituals, and imo that could explain the rise of new age/wiccan subcultures. Now you'll probably laugh or find it silly, but I also distanced myself from the mainstream traditions and, because it could be linked to one of my obsessions I guess (and because I have friends who join in on the whole thing), I adopted a set of Germanic neo-pagan rituals. It's like I (or my friends) are actually pagan, but we feel a cultural and emotional connection and interest towards it. And to be honest, having a sumer solstice bonfire and barbecue in a meadow is a balst, and one of my favorite days of the whole year. Also one of the only days I don't really feel all that socially awkward. It's strange, but there you have it.

 

[Emor]

That's pretty cool tbh Ispen.
EMZ=]

 

[poodlepiglet]

I do not like religion, or rituals. I can almost understand private madness better than collective madness. It is most important to not harm others in any madness. I do want to believe in there being some meaning to existence and a God almost in a Kantian sense if I can say that. But what God is I don't think people can define.
And I think people find what they seek but why they seek it is not always clear to them, if you go out looking you will find something that suits you. (Which is why I hate when my gran is always saying that I am searching.)

I am not searching for anything!

 

[142857]

I adopted a set of Germanic neo-pagan rituals.

Christianity beat you to it.

 

[Ipsen]

Christianity beat you to it.

True, but in most cases the only thing that remained the same were the date and a small part of the iconography. And it all became very much bound by rules, and, well, "clerical".

 

[Jade]

No. I apply logic to every situation I find myself in and every decision I have to make - the idea of God just is not logical to me, for countless reasons. I could go on forever explaining why I don't believe in Him.

 

[Calvert]

 
Example, UK vs Ireland, is it really about protestant vs catholic, or is that just the details? 

On that point, it's about nationality but religion always gets dragged into it as it's one of the main things that separates both sides. Like majority of Irish are Catholic (although Irish Protestants do exist) and the majority of British are Protestant, so religion is often brought in when it's really about nationality.

 

[142857]

Huh, I cannot remember ever being told that in my entire life. I've had religious/existential discussions with Mormons, J Witnesses, run of the mill Christians, they've said some odd things, and some have told me about the glories of heaven, but none have ever told me I was going to hell.

It is mostly fundamentalist Christians who will come straight out and tell you that you are going to hell. The bible passage often quoted is Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6).

You've done well if you haven't met one of these types yet. I've had discussions with quite a few. Mormons and JWs are perhaps better trained, they tend to talk about God's love and God's forgiveness rather than the superiority of their literal interpretation of the bible and rather than concentrating on the fate that awaits you if you don't believe what they do.

Atheists who are dogmatic about the non-existence of God can be almost evangelical in their views. There are also plenty of atheists, like myself, who identify as having no belief in God, but also no absolute belief in the non-existence of God. I used to tell people that I was agnostic, that I had no belief either way in the existence or non-existence of God. What a lot of agnostics tell you is never admit to anyone that you are agnostic. That is, unless you really like having people try to shove their belief system down your throat.

//edit: I shouldn't really go speaking for "any atheist" when I am really only speaking for myself. I am an atheist but I am in no position to speak for every atheist. Although I'm probably in a better position than someone who does not identify as atheist or even agnostic.

 

[142857]

On that point, it's about nationality but religion always gets dragged into it as it's one of the main things that separates both sides. Like majority of Irish are Catholic (although Irish Protestants do exist) and the majority of British are Protestant, so religion is often brought in when it's really about nationality.

I was raised Irish-Catholic, and I went to Catholic school in Australia with a lot of Irish-Catholics (including a few IRA sympathisers). Following is my understanding, and please correct me if am wrong, as I often am (but rarely admit).

My very brief understanding is that the fight for the independence of Ireland from the UK was along the lines of nationality. When Ireland won independence, Northern Ireland opted to remain part of the UK. The majority of citizens in Northern Ireland were (and are) protestant and loyal to the UK.

Protestants in NI have traditionally been loyal to the UK, while Catholics in NI are generally nationalists and support independence. Being Catholic is so intertwined with being pro-independence and being Protestant is so intertwined with being pro-union that it would be difficult to draw a line and say that the conflict is all about religion or nationality. Catholics in Northern Ireland were, in the past, pretty heavily discriminated against and this helped create much of the ill feeling on their part.

The reason the terrorists want to destroy us is NOT because of our religion. They care less about the conservative christian right (which is actually one of the most similar elements in our society to the hardcore islam extremists) They hate us because we are a free society. They hate us because we believe in personal liberty and freedom and self reliance, etc, etc. Religion is just the way the differences between our societies are typified.

I've lived in the country with the world's largest muslim population for most of the past 7 years. And I can say without hesitation that I've never met a muslim who hates or even resents America and its allies because of all the wonderful positive values that they have. This is a point of view put forward by some conservative, pro-war factions, but any resentment that I have detected has been along the lines of foreign policy and the ongoing support of Israel.

 

[superboyian]

@ 142857 - You wish has been granted, your post has been merged.

I actually do believe that god does exist followed by Jesus and the stuff it says on the bible, I tend to believe to think it's true, I also believe there is second life out there in the spirit world.

 

[Calvert]

I was raised Irish-Catholic, and I went to Catholic school in Australia with a lot of Irish-Catholics (including a few IRA sympathisers). Following is my understanding, and please correct me if am wrong, as I often am (but rarely admit).

My very brief understanding is that the fight for the independence of Ireland from the UK was along the lines of nationality. When Ireland won independence, Northern Ireland opted to remain part of the UK. The majority of citizens in Northern Ireland were (and are) protestant and loyal to the UK.

Protestants in NI have traditionally been loyal to the UK, while Catholics in NI are generally nationalists and support independence. Being Catholic is so intertwined with being pro-independence and being Protestant is so intertwined with being pro-union that it would be difficult to draw a line and say that the conflict is all about religion or nationality. Catholics in Northern Ireland were, in the past, pretty heavily discriminated against and this helped create much of the ill feeling on their part.

As a basic overview of what it's about, that would be correct. Obviously it goes deeper than that and there was a lot of conflict between the two sides, but basically that's what it is about. Unionists (mainly Protestant) want to remain apart of the United Kingdom while Nationalists (mainly Catholics) want to have a united Ireland (North and South to be one).

 

[142857]

When you say "mainly", though, in this case you don't mean a simple majority. Of militant unionists and militant nationalists the percentage of protestants and catholics respectively would be virtually 100%. I don't think that you would find a single active IRA or Sinn Fein member who was a member of the Church of England. Although there would likely be a small minority of moderates on both sides who cross the religious boundaries.

 

[Calvert]

 Of militants on both sides it would be 100% like you say. However what I meant was there can be people who identify themselves as Protestant or Catholic who aren't actually religious. They just identify themselves as that because most Irish are Catholic and most British are Protestant within Northern Ireland. For example, a person who is loyal to the UK and wants NI to remain a part of the UK would identify themselves as Protestant and British even though they may not be Christian at all.

Like I said before, the war/conflict or whatever you want to call it is mainly about whether Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK or be united with the rest of Ireland. Religion seems to have got caught in the middle.  

 

[Dani Evar]

IT flew, but were the petals of shadow gathered? Sometimes a present man speaks unto his own presence in his friend's absence. Sometimes someone's absence seeks to fuse itself into a stranger's unknown presence.

Often, mankind's extraneous verbs do the task of sand, vapor, and dust, instead of solidifying births, and expressing pure, honest cries. Rarely does man speak to the grass of its wet fate, or the wet mouth of a remote, incensed singer.

For some, wine comes before doubt, causing a flower to heavily spread; for others, doubt sublates wine rather prematurely.

Words thin themselves out, away from Sense; we are not wording, we are sailing an ocean of ashes, not just the length of time from dawn to dusk. It's the shivering of everything that knows the wind.

At a certain end, you and I shall fall into the same bed: non-existence, with no ridiculous stories.

Someone breathes wounded air and swims against downstream currents, or perhaps gladly takes in the whole freshness of death.

Yet, someone else could be the very unity of existence and essence.

 

[Quasar]

Do I believe in a God, as in an intelligent being that created everything and has power over our ultimate fate? No. Do I believe that there are forces at work that we do not fully understand, and could potentially be the God we think of or else be the true key to creation? Well.. no, but I think its possible.

What I believe is that we know so little about the Universe(or multi-verse, as evidence supports) that any theories or beliefs we have are just that: theories and beliefs. There are certainly interesting things about religion and some things have come true... but at the same time, we have discovered a lot of things that contradicts religion. So I see no reason to dwell over it one way or the other. I'm just happy keeping up with new developments and discoveries.

 

[Dani Evar]

A Universe of prairies. Tell me if beliefs can cover all the solitude sensed here? No. It's neither belief nor faithfulness.

I don't think one is merely satisfied with just new developments and discoveries, no matter how avid a reader/follower one may be. One has to be critical and leap from the still earth too. I don't mean just critical and active, but one must be capable of doing 'surjective epistemology' (not just 'philosophizing' subjectively), to see things in the proper cognitive context; where things overlap, where they don't, and how seeming opposites figure noumenally, at last free of infinite contingency.

This is often to the extent of Einstein's silence when it comes to (what humans call) God. He was not an atheist, neither was he conventionally religious, indeed far from that, but he had genuine respect for certain Spinozic philosophies.

It's not enough to keep an eye on scientific developments. For me, I have had to be a scientist myself and march towards the frontiers fully drenched, bearing the garment of logical inquiry even in the severest weather. At least, pick just one area of science, like cosmology, to feel what it is like to do science and not just hear it (especially through popular media).

The problem with most scientists today is that they no longer understand Philosophy (I'm not talking about superstition, or a particular mind-set, but the whole edifice of Epistemology) and are easily framed in a single paradigm. Please read Thomas Kuhn. Science too hides its 'wars of paradigms' in its sturdy-looking closet. Unless one is a scientist, one cannot participate in such a battle. (Read Kuhn, before possibly narrowing down things with Karl Popper towards empirical science.)

In contrast to others, a truly great, mature scientist usually speaks of Philosophy, towards the evening of his/her career, and is far from being content with a lifetime of methodological work.

I do physics and cosmology and I can tell you that while the ocean is full of investigative boats, it's full of crushing winds. It's not the winds that hamper progress (we have to study them too in the cold sun), it's the boats. Our troubled mental constructs. We must know how to swim too, surjectively.

God, this way, is often a remoteness; but Existence (Sein) is not just empirical science. It is also art. Fogging from Reality, experiencing phenomenological-ontological categories and ultimately seeing Existence itself (without image) through the Intellect, and fogging back into Reality, as conscious as individually possible. Realization. Creativity. Creative, authentic presence.

Reality could enter your sleeves uninvited.

Yes, you're right.

Do I believe in a God, as in an intelligent being that created everything and has power over our ultimate fate? No. Do I believe that there are forces at work that we do not fully understand, and could potentially be the God we think of or else be the true key to creation? Well.. no, but I think its possible.

What I believe is that we know so little about the Universe(or multi-verse, as evidence supports) that any theories or beliefs we have are just that: theories and beliefs. There are certainly interesting things about religion and some things have come true... but at the same time, we have discovered a lot of things that contradicts religion. So I see no reason to dwell over it one way or the other. I'm just happy keeping up with new developments and discoveries.

 

[Quasar]

I do what I can, what more can I do? There is only so much I can practically apply/study. I'm terrible at math so the theories are about as far as I can go. But that's fine with me.

 

[juffur]

redacted for security