Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Why do people believe in God?

By Dlugar in Op-Ed
Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:41:26 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags) 		Culture

Why do people believe in God?

Why do most people on the earth believe in a supreme being of some sort, especially one who fails to manifest himself to us?

Why Religion?

It's obvious as we look around us that theism is a popular meme. Probably all of you have friends who are theists, and most of you probably have friends who are weekly church-goers. Many of you are likely theists yourselves. But why? Why religion? Why believe in the first place? Why do most people on the earth believe in a supreme being of some sort, especially one who fails to manifest himself to us?


The easiest answer is that most people were born into a religion of some sort and simply raised to be Catholics, or Hindus, or Muslims. In many cases they're taught not to question their beliefs--"blind faith" is the standard. Also, there are great social pressures to conform religiously.

Churches give us a feeling of community, and of friendship and support. Commercial sectors, the ease of travel, commuting, and a variety of other factors have all but destroyed the local neighborhood's value as a strong community. Organized religion fills that gap. It gives us a feeling that we belong; it gives us friends and leaders who we can look up to, and who we can rely on when times are hard. When living in an area where there exists a dominant faith, a person with differing beliefs can feel left out and even shunned. Many even convert to the dominant religion simply out of convenience.

But these are rather superficial answers, and concentrate more on a particular church than on a belief in God itself. There are many who believe in God but do not attend any particular church. There are likewise many who currently hold beliefs strikingly dissimilar to those with which they were raised--atheists who have become Christians, Christians who have become atheists, members raised in one Christian sect who are now members of another, or members of one religion who have now joined another or abandoned organized religion as a whole. But what makes these people believe? What evidence is there that God really exists?


For many people, simply looking at the world around us denotes that there is a God. Looking at the beauty of a sunset, or the complexity of the universe, or examining the astronomical odds that intelligent life could have arisen by mere chance, gives many people the overwhelming feeling that "something bigger" must be out there. Perhaps this feeling is why almost every culture on the planet has, at one time or another, developed a creation story--their explanation of how life came to be as it is today. Normally featured is some sort of external intelligence, a being who "created" the world, a person identified as God or one of the gods. This idea, that the complexity and intricacy of the universe implies a creator, is usually called the "Argument from Design"--and, of course, there exist many good, logical arguments against it.1 At the very least, the Argument from Design does not explain to us the nature of the Creator or whether, indeed, he continues to have any influence in our world.

But it is not my intention to attempt (futilely, I might add) to prove or disprove the existence of Deity, hence I will not spend my time debating the worth of various points. I merely would like to point out some of the reasons I see why people believe in God.

Another common thread among theists is some sort of belief in a continuation of life. Some believe that we existed in some form before we were born on this earth. Almost all believe that life will continue in some form after we die. Many believe in an "immortal soul", i.e. that our "I"--our "self", our consciousness--will in some form continue living forever. This belief probably arises from some sort of intuitive feeling of other lives, either before this one or after.

Critics might say that this "feeling" is simply a response to the evolutionary pressures of survival--our brains have this innate, genetically-coded need to survive, and hence we've invented a philosophy that will allow us to "survive" even after our death. Others point out that the concept of an "afterlife" was likely invented to explain the appearance of deceased relatives in dreams (often leading to the common practice of ancestor-worship). These theories would easily explain why the doctrine of the immortal soul is so widespread. However, it is just as likely that the different cultures did not develop this idea independently; perhaps they did all have the same origin. For example, many cultures in the world also have some sort of "flood" story. It seems more likely to me that these stories originated from a single source (perhaps divine, perhaps simply an actual "great flood" that did occur in history), than that the different cultures simply developed them independently. Likewise the yearning for immortality may perhaps have a divine source. (Or it could spring from thoughts implanted in us by the aliens who deposited us on this planet.)2


But the single strongest reason, I feel, for believing in God, comes from personal experience. (It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Some have even seen miracles, such as healing the sick or raising the dead. Some people experience miraculous visions, or have prophetic dreams. Perhaps words are given or ideas suddenly appear from an unknown source--a person says something or does something spectacular and admits that it felt as if "something (or someone) else" was working through him.

Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own.

Perhaps the theists are just deluded or feigning these experiences. Perhaps the atheists have many such experiences but they choose to ignore them. Honestly, I don't really know. It seems likely to me that, truly, the theists do experience such things just as factually as the atheists don't.

But this brings up a very good question. Why not religion? Faced with this vast majority of theists, why not believe? What are potential problems with believing?


Why Not Religion?

As I mentioned above, the biggest problem seems to be a simple lack of evidence. Some people receive no answers to prayers, they see hoaxes instead of miracles, and when trying to adhere to some religious creed they end up more miserable than happy and peaceful. Another great hinderance is the sheer number of religions. The biggest problem with these "personal experiences" is that they don't seem to be limited to a particular sect or even a particular religion. I'm not sure if atheists themselves have ever heard "voices of warning" or had "feelings of premonition" and simply have some other explanation for them--but certainly worshipers in dissimilar faiths have had such experiences. When it comes to "prophetic dreams and visions," you even find contradictions among this vast sea of religion.

This is probably the biggest obstacle: in the quivering mass of contradicting religions (many even contradicting themselves), how is one supposed to find the truth? (As an aside, my recommendation is: pray to find the truth. God will lead you to it. If he doesn't, well, that's one heck of an excuse to use at Judgement Day. Just make certain you're prepared to follow him if he does lead you to it.)


Another phenomenon occurs in the academic world, which Richard Feynman examines in an essay entitled, "The Relation of Science and Religion". He notes that, "A young man, brought up in a religious family, studies a science, and as a result he comes to doubt--and perhaps later to disbelieve in--his father's God. Now, this is not an isolated example; it happens time and time again." He then poses the question: "Why does this young man come to disbelieve?" After discussing various answers that are not likely to be correct, Feynman then hits upon a major fault line.

... it is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. ...

That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty: "It is very much more likely that so and so is true than that it is not true"; or "such and such is almost certain but there is still a little bit of doubt"; or--at the other extreme--"well, we really don't know." Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth. ...

What happens, then, is that the young man begins to doubt everything because he cannot have it as absolute truth. So the question changes a little bit from "Is there a God?" to "How sure is it that there is a God?" This very subtle change is a great stroke and represents a parting of ways between science and religion. I do not believe a real scientist can ever believe in the same way again. Although there are scientists who believe in God, I do not believe that they think of God in the same way as religious people do. If they are consistent with their science, I think that they say something like this to themselves: "I am almost certain there is a God. The doubt is very small." That is quite different from saying, "I know that there is a God." I do not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view--that really religious understanding, that real knowledge that there is a God--that absolute certainty which religious people have.3



(By the way, I still feel that one can honestly say, "I know that there is a God" the same way one says, "I know that China exists" even though he has never seen China. In reality, of course, he's really saying "It is almost certain that China exists. The doubt is very small." But humans don't insist on rigidity in language.)

Feynman notes that it's not usually the existence of God that comes under question first. Usually the student first begins to doubt "special tenets, ... or details of the religious doctrine." And what is the area of religion most vulnerable to a scientific attack? I like to call it "God as spackling paste."

"[It] happens all the time. Somebody comes up with an incomplete explanation of the Universe that doesn't include God; then, some theologian uses 'God' as a sort of spackling paste to fill in the holes, and manages to convince others that that's part of the religion; then, when in due course the quest for knowledge discovers the real explanation, there's this big fight. It happened with astronomy and it happened with human evolution. Would you really want it to happen here?"
 -- FAQ about the Meaning of Life4


In most religions, there aren't answers specified for common, metaphysical questions. For example, the Bible says nothing about the orbits of celestial bodies, nor does it explain DNA and genetics. But there are some who take ambiguous statements from their Holy Writ and expand them into a complex, metaphysical answer (like Joshua's statement, "Sun, stand thou still"5 turning into the Catholic Church's condemnation of certain astronomers).

Inevitably, some authority, in whatever particular church it may be, will make a scripturally-supported statement that later turns out to be provably false. Perhaps for a while, staunch followers will defend the statement with great rhetoric and zeal, but eventually, truth will prevail. And when it does, it is almost always disastrous to the faith of the aforementioned young man, who has already come to doubt. With his newly-found "scientific mind", he almost subconsciously starts creating new hypotheses and testing their validity against the "religious truth" which he has been brought up not to question.

In some cases, theism wins out, although organized religion may be a casualty along the way. But for those lacking that personal confirmation of God's existence previously mentioned, it may be the final shattering of their belief.


And You?

What about you? Why do you believe? Or why don't you? Are the theists simply confused, deluded, sheep-like people willing to believe whatever is told them? Are the atheists egotistical infidel recalcitrants who would stubbornly refuse to believe even if an angel appeared and proclaimed God's existence?

Like I mentioned previously, I believe that theists believe in God because they have experienced many evidences supporting that conclusion, and likewise atheists disbelieve because the evidence they've seen points entirely the other way. But why such disparate evidences, enough so as to cause such a great rift among the people? That is the question to which I do not know the answer.



1 The Atheism Web: Common Arguments
2 "Who is Xenu?" http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm
3 Feynman, Richard. "The Relation of Science and Religion". Reprinted in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", 1999.
4 FAQ about the Meaning of Life
5 Joshua x:12

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
I consider myself ...
o atheist 46%
o agnostic 28%
o Judeo-Christian 12%
o other monotheist 3%
o polytheist 2%
o I don't know 6%

Votes: 522
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o The Atheism Web: Common Arguments
o http://www .xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm
o The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
o FAQ about the Meaning of Life
o Joshua x:12
o Also by Dlugar

Display: Sort:
Why do people believe in God? | 1048 comments (1038 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
You're a squirrel (2.62 / 16) (#2)
by debacle on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:20:01 AM EST

And the first acorn you ever come into contact with wallops you on the head like your mother just bitchslapped you. You go on the rest of your life hating acorns.

OR

The first acorn you ever come into contact with is one you eat. You go on the rest of your life eating acorns.

Now apply that to people and religion.

And then vote this article down.

It tastes sweet.

Why do people believe... (4.00 / 6) (#5)
by mreardon on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:31:55 AM EST

...they are seperate from "God/Self"?

A better question to ask, surely, before you can question the existence of "God/Self" is "Who am I?". Until this question is answered it is folly, like an eye trying to see itself.



Why not believe...... (4.85 / 14) (#11)
by rdskutter on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:53 AM EST

Many athiests, like myself, see religion being used as a tool to control groups of people. Leaders use religion to ratify actions that would otherwise be considered absoultely horrendous to anyone with a secure code of morals.

I have never had any miraculous expericences that make me feel that I have to believe, I only see religion being used against people as a tool for people who want power over other people and I choose to abstain. I can think for myself. I don't need somebody else to tell me that War is justified because of what is written in some book that may or may not be the sacred word of some deity.

In short, religion is dangerous. It conveniently strips people of the need to think things through using their own moral code. Actions can be justified by one persons subjective interpretation of the religious code and then are automatically ratified by followers of that religion.

I want no part in it.

BEEN A BIT CARELESS HAVEN'T WE? - Mr Death.

nicely balanced n/t. (4.20 / 5) (#12)
by danni on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:17:25 AM EST



It always make me giggle (4.52 / 17) (#16)
by starsky on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:43:26 AM EST

about how non-believers (very prevalent on k5) get SO WOUND UP about how religious people shouldn't believe what they do, and shouldn't go around telling people what to think. They do this by posting on k5 on how they believe there is no God and that everyone should think that.

European difference (4.77 / 9) (#21)
by LQ on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 07:47:23 AM EST

most of you probably have friends who are weekly church-goers

That might be true in some parts of the world. Here in Europe it is much less likely to be so. I can't think of any of my friends who's ever been a church-goer. Certainly in northern Europe atheism or religious inactivity is pretty much the norm.

I believe in God because I've felt ... (4.66 / 6) (#22)
by pyramid termite on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 07:55:44 AM EST

... God's presence in the world, the people around me and myself. I can't explain or convince anyone of that. But it's not something I consider as told or imposed upon me - it's part of my experience.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
A koan for your consideration (4.31 / 16) (#24)
by yammering communist on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:35:33 AM EST

When I was eight or nine years old, I made a resolution to stay up all night on Christmas Eve to determine once and for all the validity of that flimsy Santa Claus story. I had the distinct pleasure, and the palatable dismay, to observe that my parents, and seemingly most of the population of the Northern Hemisphere, had contrived to fill my pliable young cortex with worthless untruths for my entire life up to that moment.

I couldn't figure it out. Why couldn't they just give me the presents? I mean, isn't the fact that I am together with my family, giving and recieving, enough of a reason for everyone? Did they really have to fabricate this ridiculous cover story?

The next morning, my mother said a prayer before breakfast. I couldn't figure out why she needed to tell God stuff he obviously knew, since he already knows everything that goes on all over the universe all the time. (I was actually thinking this. Thanks, Sunday School.)

Ten minutes later, my grandmother knocked a hanging mirror from a wall. Thankfully it landed face-up on a carpeted floor, sparing us from the unenviable task of cleaning up shards of broken glass. My mother expressed her gratitude: "I'm glad. You could have had seven years of bad luck."

At that moment, I became enlightened.

Haven't been to church since.

---

I fear nothing. I believe nothing. I am free.

--Nikos Kazantzakis, epitaph.
Athiest zealots are just as bad as religious ones (4.25 / 4) (#25)
by ph317 on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:35:51 AM EST


Personally, I'm in an inquisitive agnostic with no particular religious standing.  I generally agree that it's very likely most major world religions aren't founded on very much truth, and serve as a crutch for the weak-minded as well as a power center and money maker for those controlling them.  However, I think the Athiest view is equally extreme.  It's hard to contemplate the universe and mankind existing as they do without some form of divine intervention at some stage.  The question to me is really "What is the nature of that divinity, and will we ever know anything factual about it?"  For all I know it could turn out to be some long-dead alien race that made us the way we are, or some intelligent entity in a reality not observable from our own.  While I tend to lean towards scientific answers, I don't rule out that "God" in a traditional sense might well be the answer.  However, until I find stronger evidence to support some view or other, I will remain inquisitively agnostic.

Why? one word... Repeatability. (4.00 / 5) (#28)
by Silverfish on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:56:40 AM EST

Repeatability is the step in the scientific process that makes me an atheist.

If someone has a religious experience, great.  I can honestly say that if someone's belif enriches their life, and doesn't hurt anyone (the believer or anyone else), then I'm all for it.

However, it is up to the person making the positive assertion to prove their assertion.  It is not accepted as being true by default.  So, until someone comes up with something in the way of proof that can withstand scientific rigor, my personal belif is that the probability of God existing is infinitesimal (though nonzero).

Flood answer (3.16 / 6) (#32)
by Quila on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:06:10 AM EST

Good and balanced article, interesting.

For your answer, the flood tale is represented in another form in the epic of Gilgamesh, which appears to tell the mythified story of an actual flood in Sumeria around 4,000 BCE.  Of course, in the flat Tigris/Euphrates floodplain, a large but easily possible flood would appear to flood the world.

Given that at the time Sumeria was the center of culture in the world, it's not suprising that the myth spread. For the Christian connection, the Gilgamesh epic was written long before Genesis could have been. There are also many connections and similarities between the Sumerian and Noah's flood, and they all flow from Sumeria to Noah.

of questioning one's faith (4.66 / 6) (#33)
by VoxLobster on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:07:40 AM EST

I am of the belief that if you are not prepared to sometimes question your faith, you are not worthy of it. Faith can be both a good and bad thing. When used properly, I can instill a sense of peace, and can help to promote people to become better people. When used improperly, it is used to justify horrors, such as the crusades, jihad, mass murder...It seems to me that the people who use faith properly are the ones that are able to question their faith. The ones who blindly follow usually end up causing more suffering than they could ever invision.

VoxLobster
I was raised by a cup of coffee! -- Homsar

Why so heavy on Christianity? (3.50 / 6) (#34)
by Hellraisr on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:08:36 AM EST

There are many other religions out there that also believe in God. I had to give you a -1. I also couldn't use the poll because it does not provide me an option that is appropriate for me. I think this article should have went to editing first. Remember kids, there are more choices in life than "I don't believe in God" on one hand and Xtian style religion on the other. Believe it or not, some people just believe in God without having religion whatsoever. Belief in God does not require religion. You don't need religion to tell you whether God exists or not. Religion just explains how a particular God did this or that or the other, it gives God a personality, something which I imagine God doesn't even have. Personalities are a flawed creation of man.

Theism springs from the ego of the human bean... (4.00 / 2) (#62)
by knott art on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:51:33 AM EST

everybody wants his god to be number 1... just as he is number 1.

"Bet my god can whip your god."
Knott Art

Why I don't believe (4.83 / 6) (#65)
by gauntlet on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:06:47 AM EST

First, let me say that this story was well-written. The author acknowledged their perspective, but managed to prevent a reasoned explanation of various viewpoints as seen from that perspective.

So I'm encouraged to share mine.

I'm the son of Irish Catholics. Irish Catholicism, as differentiated from regular Catholicism, is strange. It is typically staunch, but also not very demanding. Go ahead and sin, just confess your way out of it.

Where I live, the seperate school board was Catholic, so I went to Catholic schools until high school. I got a job when in high school that required me to work Sunday mornings. At that point, my parents could no longer justify dragging me to church. When I lost the job, their desire to drag me to church disappeared, and I stopped going.

I was married in the Catholic church. I will occasionally attend Christmas or Easter services in the Catholic church, but I haven't in some time.

The moment that decided it for me came when I was about 12 years of age. My mother would get up on Sundays, and start getting us out of bed. She would make breakfast, ensure we dressed appropriately, and tidied ourselves up. Meanwhile, dad would get up at his leisure, shit shave shower shine and shampoo, and hop into the car. Mom, inevitably, would not be ready to leave, and we would sit in the car waiting, with dad grumbling about how we can never be on time for anything, because we children forced mom to drag us out of bed in the morning.

This particular sunday, we're sitting in the car, and Dad's complaining, and I say something to the effect of "What good is going to church every Sunday if all it does is make you angry with Mom and us?"

In the next moment, my father hit me across the face.

That was the one and only time my father ever hit me, and I know for a fact that he feels guilty about it to this day, 14 years later. I've forgiven him, because in the meantime I've realized that the question was very hurtful.

But it made me absolutely certain that the question meant something, and that the answer was important. I started to question the good that came from my parents' faith. And there is a lot of good that comes from it. But I looked at the things that were good, that came from the church, and I came to the conclusion that those things were not coming from God, they were coming from people.

So whether or not God existed became immaterial to the important question: whether or not the church was good. God no longer had a direct effect, for me, on good and bad. When the question of benefit or detriment was removed from the question of whether or not there was a god, that is to say, when for me the world was the same whether or not God existed, it was obvious he did not.

I still see the good that comes from religion, as much as I may disagree with its dogma. And I believe the good outweighs the negative in most places. I will likely baptise my children, out of respect for my parents' faith, and the value of community. But I don't believe in God. I don't need to.

Into Canadian Politics?

Why I'm not an atheist... (2.83 / 6) (#67)
by Run4YourLives on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:11:00 AM EST

I always like to counter questions like the one posed here with this statement:

An atheist has a lot more faith in absolutley nothing than I could ever have in God.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

I'm surprised (4.50 / 4) (#69)
by UltraNurd on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:19:33 AM EST

I did not expect the poll to swing so much towards agnostics and atheists. I know that many of the users of this site are of the geek persuasion, which is highly correlated with a lack of religious faith, but wow. Given the percentage of Americans who self-identify as judeo-christian (I wanna say something like 70%?), and the percentage of people world-wide who claim some religious faith (I think Contact said that it was at 95%), the poll seems highly unbalanced. I guess I'm just a poor, confused, Lutheran geek leaning on God as a crutch... ;o)

--
"Your Mint Mountain Dew idea is hideous and wrong."
-Hide The Hamster

Why I'm an atheist (4.90 / 10) (#73)
by vadim on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:37:15 AM EST

It's because I've thought about it, and decided I just have no need to believe in a god or anything of that kind. I believe that a god is simply the generic answer to what hasn't been answered yet. Christianity has this "misterious ways of God" thing that annoys me a little. It's just another wildcard that some people use to avoid thinking by themselves.

For example, at some time people used to believe that lightining was caused by Zeus, Thor or some other god. Why? Probably because they saw something scary on the sky and just had to find an explanation to it. Of course, the easiest explanation is to invent something that you can attribute everything you don't know to, that is, a god.

Lightning? That's caused by God. Pregnancy? That's God too. A tree fell down on your kid? That's God punishing you for being evil. Probably the thought that things just happen for no special reason is too desperating for some people. They want to believe there's some reason why things happen.

However, with time, we learned that lightning is caused by an electric discharge between clouds and ground. We learned to do artificial insemination. And we learned that if you look good enough you can see that a tree or piece of rock is going to fall down before it does. I believe that science will explain everything else some day.

I simply see no need to attribute things like my good luck or lack of it to a superior being. I prefer to think that what happens with me is caused by myself, and not somebody who sits somewhere in the clouds and decides I should have a bad day because I'm not good enough.
--
<@chani> I *cannot* remember names. but I did memorize 214 digits of pi once.

wrong (4.00 / 4) (#77)
by minus273 on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:52:40 AM EST

hey. "especially one who fails to manifest himself to us" is not only wrong but factually incorrect.
Maybe in youre religion you fail to see god. Hindu gods have been coming to earth for mellenia. You can see the goddess living in kathmandu (my home town ) here.
And there are more.
Please dont include hinduism or buddhism in your blanket statement.

Atheists want end to churches giving tips to cops (3.00 / 5) (#78)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:54:55 AM EST

Just saw this headline.... Holy Crimebusters Take Heat From Civil Rights Advocates.

Lynn has no problem with clergy providing services that the chaplains perform in Harvey, but worries that having a mayor come to religious orders for help gives them a type of "official blessing."

Nothing like another example of blind hostility to religion....


--
His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiousity.
Why I don't believe (4.40 / 5) (#96)
by quartz on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:16:28 PM EST

Well, why would I? I don't feel the slightest need for some sort of higher meaning in my life -- I'm perfectly content to live my life free of any kind of meaning whatsoever. I'm not afraid of death. Reason is the only tool I need to understand the world. It also provides the only framework I need to interact with other people; I don't feel like I'm losing anything by not participating in super-spiritual happy magic communion church rituals or "connecting" with the "community" at any other levels. I have nothing to pray for. I have no use for faith.

By definition, to have faith is to believe strongly in something for which there is no proof; I see no good reason to do that.

--
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke, and fuck 'em even if they can.

Visions... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by SiMac on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:18:36 PM EST

Most people don't see visions. They find them fascinating, however, because they violate what they traditionally think about the world. Ordinarily, these spirits are given the characteristics of an earthly animal, person, or object, and then a few are removed, added, or replaced. People pray because it provides them with hope.

That's not to say that God does or does not exist; I lean toward the second, but I'm an agnostic.

Also, there are good reasons for rejecting God as portrayed Christianity and Judiaism. How could a perfect God create imperfect humans and still be perfect? He can't be perfect himself. Are we just sucking up to a big bully? Or is there a way to restore confidence in God's goodness?

Why would God create us? Not as his servants, if he's omnipotent. What does he need with a bunch of sinning humans? The way around this, of course, is to say that he created us "to exist," but then everything conceivable must exist somewhere else too. That explanation seems somewhat unsatisfying for why a holy being would create us, although it's the best I could come up with. Any good Christians care to comment?

Atheism is a Crutch for Weak People (4.50 / 26) (#103)
by dasunt on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:33:14 PM EST

Atheism is a crutch for people who need to believe in a rational world.

God represents what will forever remain unknown: what our primate mind can not and will never understand. The universe is a bizarre place, with powerful, unknown forces at work, and while science is trying to answer some of those questions, other questions are, and will remain, unanswerable.

Yet the atheist decides, based on limited evidence, that there is no possibility of a deity. Perhaps its for mental reasons: it is possible to live a life against God's will, but isn't it easier to declare that there is no God and feel the false sense of security that whatever you do is okay, since there cannot be any religious consequences? Perhaps its mankind's lazy behavior. Why bother having to learn about religion when you can declare that you don't believe it. Perhaps its a need to feel superior to all those "fools" who believer in religion, while unknowingly making a religion out of science and logic.

Personally, I feel that everyone should be free to believe in whatever they want to, but atheists tend to try to force their beliefs on others, especially with their Catholic-bashing (which they think is religion-bashing, but to a lot of atheists, "religion" and "catholicism" is the same thing).

Which brings up another point: The majority of atheists do not seem to know much about the belief systems they are rejecting. I enjoy a religious debate as much as the next guy, but atheists tend to not know what they are talking about. To an atheist, debate is either bringing up questions that Augustine answered almost two millennium ago, or else mentioning how the Catholic church is responsible for massacres in the past. Perhaps I should ask them about the problems of Steady-State theory in their rational universe or talk about how Pol Pot killed millions.

I could respect atheists a lot more if they understood religious philosophies and faith. Perhaps, if they studied, they'd find that a faith such as Mahayana Buddhism or Universal Unitarianism comes closer to their beliefs then atheism. Unfortunately, atheists seem to cherish the belief that since they don't believe in religion, they don't have to understand what religion is. Ironically, they often accuse the religious of being closed minded!

[ Consider the above a rant, a troll, sarcasm, or the truth. Who knows? ]



My own Experiences (4.00 / 3) (#104)
by mikromouse on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:33:57 PM EST

My own experiences growing up were based mainly on others. I went to church with my family (Methodist Christian) until I was 10. At 10, I told my mom that I didn't understand why we went to church, why I had to be there, and why we always wasted Sunday's.

My mom told me it was my choice whether or not I wanted to to Church, and I don't think I've been back since (except those unaviodable weddings, graduations, etc.).

Growing up in a rural, highly-isolated, upper/middle-class town opened my eyes to some things too. It didn't seem to matter what religion you associated with, as long as you had religion. When the kids up here figured out I didn't, geez...the repercussions. Let's just say I never met a person up here that wasn't assoicated with some religion that wanted me to join their religion.

I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, but for me that was really frustrating. My views are atheist, but leaning towards agnostic (gotta cover all my bases). I have a cursory interest in religion, but mainly because I'm curious about how people can believe in them, and how they got started.

Seems to me my religious experience started the same, but when I was given the choice I bailed pretty fast. Of course, I never heard God talking back to me, and maybe other's do.

I dunno...anyone know what I'm talkin about?

"Are you able to condense fact from the vapor of nuance?"
it's simple (1.40 / 20) (#106)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:06 PM EST

if you believe in god

you are a quaint, provincial, moron

you're cute, but you can't be taken seriously


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Evolution and religion (5.00 / 5) (#108)
by IHCOYC on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:35 PM EST

I think you may oversimplify slightly the link between evolution and religion. What helped people survive during the millions of years we were all hunters and gatherers was group cohesion. Since we are semi-intelligent creatures who use symbols as tools, myths, rituals, and deities who smile on our group especially help build group cohesion, enforce the tribal folkways, and give you a feeling of belonging with your tribe. You can get rid of God, but you can't get rid of religion; Communism, despite its pretense of official atheism, developed an elaborate calendar of ritual festivities, iconography, and personality cults. This, I think, is the basis of evolved religious feelings.

Being aware of this, as a believer I tend to judge theologies and doctrines by the extent to which they are not predicted by this model. A religion that says to "love your enemies" is making a statement that seems to be contrary to the inherited purpose of religion, generally. Likewise, statements that say that "you can never make yourself good enough by obeying a code of rules" are subversive rather than supportive of the group-cohesion rationale of inherited religious feelings.

This is hardly proof of the truth of these teachings; if they could be proven, faith would be superfluous. On the other hand, though, the fact that the teachings of my religion subvert rather than sustain the evolutionary purpose of group cohesion does suggest that they may have another source, which could be Divine Revelation. This makes them more plausible than simply saying, "We are saved, and they are damned! God bless the Austro-Hungarian Empire!"
 --
Quod sequitur, sicut serica lucis albissima tingere rogant;
Quod sequitur, totum devorabit.

extremist agnosticism (3.50 / 2) (#111)
by The Shrubber on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:42:59 PM EST

I personally am an extremist agnostic.  Not only do i not know what's going on around us, I declare that I shall never know, but that shouldn't stop me from seeking anyway.

a good book to read on this subject (4.50 / 2) (#126)
by asad on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 12:55:47 PM EST

is Knowledge of Angels.
Here's a review:
From Publishers Weekly
Set on a fictive Mediterranean island in medieval Europe, Walsh's dark philosophical religious fable moves through two intersecting subplots. Amara, who was abandoned as an infant and raised by wolves, is captured by shepherds. Unable to speak or walk upright, she is sent to a convent where she becomes the object of an experiment to determine whether knowledge of God is innate. The other plot strand involves Palinor, an atheistic humanist prince and castaway who seeks refuge on the island but is persecuted by the Catholic Church. Beneditx, a pious scholar, attempts to persuade the unyielding Palinor that God exists. With the arrival of a special inquisitor from Rome, the clash between secular and conservative ecclesiastical values moves inexorably toward a gruesome climax. Walsh, a prolific author of young-adult books, tackles large questions in her first serious religious parable for adults: How can one reconcile the existence of evil with faith in a beneficent God? Why does religion spawn intolerance and violence? Sonorous prose, a polyphonic interweaving of themes and a diverse cast of characters from all rungs of society leaven an often didactic tale which addresses timeless issues.

I am not a christian so some of the arguments went over my head but if you are interested in a debate about God this is definitly something you should read.

Why I'm an agnostic. (3.33 / 3) (#137)
by Torka on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:06:23 PM EST

Indecision is the most appropriate response to a lack of evidence of God(s), not atheism.

Asserting that absence of proof is proof of absence when it comes to the question of a supreme being has always seemed to me to be no less presumptuous and unreasoning than blind belief in religion.

Hi (4.25 / 4) (#138)
by bayou on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:06:34 PM EST

I am not a religious person; you would probably characterize me as an "atheist". I have lived through many of your so-called "religious experiences" but have not attributed them to some Godly force. Sometimes I feel as though I am on a path, and someone or something is pushing me along and I can't help but march forward. I guess they call it "destiny".

Here is a recent anecdote that fits into this picture:

A few weeks ago, I got up early to go some place. I got on the bus and immediately found a seat. A few stops later some old woman came on and was left standing as no one would get up and give her a seat. That would be the proper thing to do, as she looked old and frail. I do not usually get up and give my seat away to such people, though I know it is a nice thing to do. I am not a nice person. For some unexplainable reason, I got up that day and gave her my seat. As if by clockwork as I moved toward the end of the bus some person who sat in my favorite "section" got up and got off the bus. The seat was mine as no one else was near it. I sat down and gazed forward only to spot a little booklet firmly (and seemingly deliberately) wedged between the adjacent seat and the bus wall. It was a miniature version of the New Testament. How strange, thought I. I kept it and it remains in my bag to this day.

I probably should read it one day.

Something to think about... (4.00 / 2) (#140)
by mberteig on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:07:51 PM EST

O Son Of Spirit!

I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how dost thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
Atheism is reactionary (4.12 / 8) (#148)
by fantods on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:12:32 PM EST

The self-proclaimed Atheists (with a capital "A") that I've met in person seemed to be reacting to a religion that they were in recovery from. It's not so much that they 'didn't believe in God' as they were trying to disentangle themselves from a previous believe system that still had its hooks in their psyches.

That takes awhile, but it can be done. However, people who have done it don't usually walk around calling themselves "Atheists" because by that time they've let go and moved on to something besides religion.

Ex-Catholic self-proclaimed Atheists are real solid nutcases - they've got *so* much to recover from! Poor babies...I wish them well...

Drugs and burden of proof (4.83 / 6) (#150)
by Iscariot on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:15:50 PM EST

From all the stories I've heard from believers, miracles are always subtile. I've never heard a Christian tell me that "a being of light came to them in the night and woke them." It's usually stuff like "the phone rang and woke me up just in time stop my kid from falling down the stairs." If one cannot see that as a possible conicidence, then one is truely self deceptive... and close minded.

Anyway... I think one way to understand so called miracles is by way of drugs.

Now, I hate to admit it, but I've taken some serious drugs in the past. Peyote for example. And I remember sitting on the couch, with my eyes open, and yet I could see NOTHING that was going on in the room. I was someplace else. The information path from my eyes to my brain was completely rewired for a few hours.

The point is, the brain is amazing at deception. Example here. So just because you "feel" the presense of God, is in no way proof that he is there. I saw a pink elephant with a top hat whilst on peyote. But when all was said and done, did I really honestly think that I had seen one earlier that day? No.

Another thing to keep in mind is that proof requires repetition. If you cannot repeat and expirement on something more than once, then you can't exactly prove it. So there is no sense in talking about it.

Lastly, it is not the burden of atheists or agnostics to prove that there is no God. It is the burden of those that do believe. For example. I cannot prove that there aren't millions of monsters living at the center of the earth waiting until the year 2020 to come to the surface and kill us all. I cannot prove that there is not a giant pink teddy bear (the size of our galaxy) 10 billion light years "up" from where I am sitting.

Notice how you go to school and learn things that are, things that have been proven by repetition, not things that aren't. I never once heard a teacher say "okay class, remember to study for your test on friday about how there are no monsters at the center of the earth, and how there isn't a giant pink teddy bear 10 billion light years away."

The end.

God is a random number generator. (3.28 / 7) (#153)
by Fen on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:16:52 PM EST

Think about it.
--Self.
Let's kill everyone else! (2.42 / 7) (#161)
by Fen on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:23:16 PM EST

Just as I thought, majority atheist/agnostic.  We who worship math and science are the only ones who deserve to live.  Technology is might, and might makes right!
--Self.
Quick epistemological question: (4.00 / 2) (#162)
by gzt on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:26:07 PM EST

Before one starts ranting about why one doesn't accept "religion" or does accept "religion", one must ask, "What criteria do I use to evaluate the truth of these claims?"  And also, perhaps, "What criteria should one use to evaluate the truth of religious claims?"

Or, to put it another way, "What would it take to convince you there is a God who loves you?" or "What would it take to convince you there is no God?" Where 'God' is defined in whichever religious sense you are considering at the moment, ie, the Judaic God, the Trinitarian God of orthodox Christianity, the Muslim God... Feel free to continue until you hit Kali or Helixpixelopterix.

I'm agnostic... (4.75 / 8) (#179)
by composer777 on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:42:40 PM EST

I'm going to talk about the religion that I know best, and that is Christianity. I went to 12 years of Catholic schooling, which means that I'm Agnostic.

I don't think there is solid evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of god. My feeling on religion is that belief in religion is proportional to how powerless and oppressed people are. People that feel they have little control over their lives tend to be more devout than those who feel they are empowered to do things themselves. For example the US is one of the most religious countries in the world besides 3rd world countries, and I think this has to do with the fact that America has the cheapest labor of any industrialized country. People are treated like they are commodities and have longer work weeks any other 1st world country. The news is reported in a way to make you feel powerless, with events always described in a 3rd person manner, and passive tense used when we have done something wrong, i.e. "Protesters shot in Falluja". Who shot the protestors? Why were they shot? Overall, the goal of news is to make people feel powerless to change the actions of the powerful, and to direct their rage at fictitious enemies at home or abroad. In other words, the only kind of power people are given is to do what the government wants. The goal is to turn people into spectators, so that they are able to affirm the decisions of their "betters". In the US, your issues don't matter, only the issues that the politicians present are acceptable, and usually only one choice is allowed. The idea is to make up ficticious enemies such as crime (we have more people locked up than anywhere in the world), war with powerless enemies, and the poor(anyone remember "welfare moms"?). What they really mean, is "black" mothers. That's the idea, is to keep you distracted so that you cheer when they gut your social programs, are ecstatic when they throw more of you in jail, and are proud when your friends go off to war and die. The end result of all this crap is that people will tend to want a higher power to bring justice to this world and to give them power over their lives through prayer. They are afraid so they need a god (and a powerful leader) to huddle under.

On the other side, hierarchical religions are often used by those in power to justify their power. The template of power reigned on high is pressed into peoples brains very early by observing the Christian (especially Catholic) Church. Eventually, this can be used to justify power by presenting the leader as a holy man, a man of God. This has been used to make dubya look good. link

I had to go to google's cache to get this, the picture was with Bush praying with his head down, such a nice man. The same type of propaganda was used for Hitler too. Hitler was a man of god too, a Christian. The more egalitarian a society is, the less people will turn to religion as an excuse or an excape.

Watch out (3.50 / 2) (#186)
by ethereal on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:47:26 PM EST

I can't believe that that guy who flames on about memes and religion hasn't lambasted you yet. Give him time, though :)

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

S/He appears quite often (3.50 / 2) (#191)
by silicondecay on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 01:50:08 PM EST

As evidenced by this and many other stories.

Seriously though, why should God bother to show himself to people who refuse to believe? That is what faith is for. You have faith that God exists. I think most religous people can prove to themselves that God exists, but it is not something they can put into words.

If I told you God exists, because I can feel his presence, or feel something deep inside me, it is really easy for you to debunk it. Just a shift in brain chemicals you might say. Maybe social conditioning, or just an absolute need to believe in something, anything. I know he exists, and thats all that matters to me.

If I can help some people come to find God, Awesome! All the much better for them. To waste time trying to convice people who are so caught up in worldy persuits, or just plain refuse to be open to something radical, well that is ridiculous.


"You can't make a crabby patty until you understand P.O.O.P" SpongeBob SquarePants
Atheism as a religion (4.66 / 3) (#207)
by Ian Lance Taylor on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:00:55 PM EST

I'm an atheist, and I wrote an essay about my beliefs. In short, just as I think some people have an experience which confirms their belief in god, I encountered an argument which converted me from agnosticism and confirmed my belief in atheism.

Committed atheism may not be very different from faith in god. Agnostiscism, of the form of ``I won't believe in god until he/she is proven to exist'' is different, but for many people may not be an emotionally satisfying position to hold.
Why I "dis" believe. (4.50 / 2) (#208)
by alexboko on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:02:35 PM EST

Good point about science... that is exactly what I mean in the rare cases when I explicitly bother to say "I don't believe in god." I really mean that "I assign a low probability to the existance of a god as described by most religions that I know of, at this point in time, in our local region of space" As I've come to know more about the implications of AI and nanotech, I've come to believe that beings with most of the powers ascribed to god can be brought into existance by continued technological progress. However, I don't yet have a catchy, pithy way of encapsulating this belief for the modern short attention span. So I say something vague about either being an agnostic or believing that science and religion will someday find a common ground. Depending on how open-minded the person I'm speaking to appears to be.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.
It´s not a question of evidences (4.60 / 5) (#209)
by Niha on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:02:56 PM EST

 No one I know being religious believes because of "evidences" you are talking about. I think it´s not what you experience, but what you think about what you experience...

Most people cannot accept the death of their ego (5.00 / 4) (#211)
by revscat on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:03:55 PM EST

Most people find it impossible to accept the fact that one day their self, that ego that has been so carefully nurtured and cultivated over the years, will one day simply cease to exist. The thought of this arises terror, rejection, and anger and a host of other emotions. This knowledge, though, is never fully suppressed and is, I believe, the fundamental driving force of human behavior, including religion, and specifically the evangelical drive that is so common across all reigions (including atheism).

The idea of God would be unnecessary were it not for a belief in the afterlife. Although there are a few religions that do not proscribe some sort of afterlife, they are few and far between. The vast majority of religions teach that individuals will continue living after they die. The ego will continue to exist, desires can be fulfilled, and various rewards (or punishments) will be given.

Taken in the context of denying death, arguments about proof are almost secondary. The underlying issue is whether the individual is willing to consider their own destruction; not just the destruction of their body, but the actual destruction of their Self. People believe in God because they believe in themselves. God is secondary. Take away death and you take away God. But since death cannot be taken away God will remain.

This also explains the "peaceful" feeling discussed by the article's author. What could possibly be more peaceful than knowing you are safe from any harm, for all eternity?

Karl Marx famously said that religion is the opiate of the masses. This is because religion subdues the desire in people to agitate for social change. Why bother, when this life is just a temporary step on the journey towards eternity?

None of the ideas presented herein are my own. They were first introduced to me by Ernest Becker in his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Denial of Death.



- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
Cowardliness (3.66 / 3) (#212)
by Alhazred on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:05:30 PM EST

Thats the gist of it. They are simply not able to face up to the possibility, even when it is plain to see, that they aren't the center of the Universe, that they are actually responsible for their own actions, and that they are the ones that are going to have to figure out how to work out the future for themselves.

Instead they prefer to hide in the comforting illusion that some grand plan exists for the world and they don't have to take any real responsibility. Not all religions are the same, but take a look at the Christians around you. They are mostly total hypocrits, they supposedly believe in a code of morality but they not only fail to live up to it (and then conveniently all is forgiven) but they corrupt this code of conduct to suite their own ends. This is not upstanding behaviour. Its not even Christian behaviour by any reasoned interpretation.

Basically humans are afraid. They are afraid of the future, they are afraid of their own responsibilities, and they are afraid of each other, and of themselves to boot.

Now, lest everyone take that as a totally anti-religious tirade, its not. I think where we are now is probably a necessary step in the evolution of consciousness. Just as we understand that people had to evolve from the stone age to today, someday more enlightened people will see this stage in our development as containing the seeds for whatever comes next and as a stepping stone to that. Some would like to abolish religion or fight against its negative aspects. Just take it for what it is. It contains both higher ideals and lower aspects. One day our descendants will smile to themselves about our notions of God, morality, and the afterlife, etc.
That is not dead which may eternal lie And with strange aeons death itself may die.

there's more than one way to do it (5.00 / 3) (#219)
by artemb on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:11:12 PM EST

Does anybody else finds it disturbing that most of the time in similar discussions the debate is about
  * "I believe in God" vs. "I don't believe in God".

That tends to associate agnostics and atheists with the "don't" part of the discussion and ignore the fact that agnostics are not atheists. If anything, agnostics are as far from atheists as they are from theists.

I think that three-side argument would make more sense
   * I believe God exists
   * I believe that God does not exist
   * I don't have any proof one way or another, so I doubt.

At the moment neither theists nor atheists can prove their point of view.

If they decide to do so, theists would probably have easier time doing so. After all all they have to do is to demonstrate a single instance of god. Well, then you'll have to prove that what you're demonstrating is God. Any idea how to do that?

Atheists ot the other hand, will have to demonstrate that there is no god anywhere in space-time (never mind other dimensions) - this sounds pretty tough to me, so I'm not holding my breath. Oh, joys of proving negative statements!

Does anybody have any ideas on how one can conclusively prove of disprove existence of God.
Simple "God existence proof HOWTO" would do.

----------------
Agnostics of the world, unite!

some comments. (3.45 / 20) (#220)
by Estanislao Martínez on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:11:21 PM EST

First, I'll start off by saying that this story is (a) an almost completely predictable display of rabid atheistic ignorance (you know, the good old "I'm and atheist and I'm smarter and a better person than the average Jane"), (b) utter crap, (c) unpredictable only in those places where it's worse than I predicted beforehand (wtf is that crap about belief in afterlife being "explained" by evolutionary theory as a "survival drive"? Are you on crack?).

As I've said before, analysing religion in fundamentally intellectual terms is just wrong. Religions, contrary to what your typical condescening idiot arrogant superiority-complexed in-your-face rabid atheist would have it, are fundamentally not about believing empirically inert sentences about the existence of supernatural beings. Religions are practices, not theories, and the crucial thing about a religion is what its practicioners do, and even here, not individual acts, but rather a whole way of life. Yes, many religions (Christianism is a prime example) talk about "belief," "faith" and so on, but plenty just don't; this is an incidental aspect of religion. "You shall judge them by their deeds."

Contrast this with, say, quantum mechanics, or any other scientific theory; a scientific theory is something we are intended to relate to in a purely intellectual manner (we're supposed to find grounds for believing or disbelieving it), and which does not constrain us to act in any particular way.

The bias is easy to see now: you are implicitly judging religions by a standard that is not appropriate to them, that of science. The answer is simple: the values of natural science may be all fine and dandy for science, but there is no reason that we should apply them to things that have to do with how we live our daily lives, such as religion. Science is about coming to believe empirically true statements, while religion is about living your life a certain way. And to the degree that your attack on religion aims to prescribe how people should live their daily lives, you are entering into the same domain as religion.

In other words: why should we lay a burden of proof at all in a person that lives her life in a particular way, which happens to involve making statements of the form "I believe in God"? Sure, we can judge that person in many ways (do their actions promote good for other people, etc.), but why do you think that we should judge her at all based on the "truth" of her statement? What makes you think that your scientific viewpoint is so damn important that their personal experience and approach to life should yield to it unconditionally? Who the fuck do you think you are to condescendingly tell other people that the way they live their lives is ridiculous and "superstitious"? Who made you and your kind the supreme arbitrers of culture?

--em

I have concluded (3.50 / 2) (#221)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:12:19 PM EST

that if God does exist, he MUST exist outside our universe.

why is this? very simple, the Universe will end one day. God and Heven are eternal so there can be no end.

there is a possability for this in theoretical physics.

baby universes. if say, God is a scientist is another Universe that our universe exists in and God created our universe to study the life and death of universe's he/she /it could them monitor everything and even use worm holes to enter the universe.

is this far fetched? sure, but it is the only possability for god to actualy exist in his/her/its current definition.

Heh (4.11 / 9) (#222)
by trhurler on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:13:06 PM EST

There's a reason this argument isn't worth having. Namely, there are three kinds of people. Religious folks don't need a reason; they're proud of that fact. Granted, this is some form of mental illness, but it doesn't matter. Religious atheists(there is no god, and I can prove it!) don't need a reason either, but they think they do, which makes them religiously compelled to argue despite the obvious hopelessness of the situation. A more annoying, but essentially identical sort of illness. Then there is a tiny minority, to which I belong, which simply doesn't give a flying fuck, and regards the question "is there a god?" as being very, very similar to "are there invisible pink elephants?" in the sense that it doesn't matter and we can't tell anyway. (Granted, there are so-called agnostics too. They're religious; they just can't get past their doubts, and they think other religious people don't have so many doubts, because they have not understood religion very clearly.)

Why do you want to argue with a bunch of mentally ill people? Are YOU mentally ill?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie
Why can't people accept that gods exist? (3.83 / 6) (#226)
by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:18:18 PM EST

True, the gods do have some sort of conspiracy to hide themselves in plain sight. However, I'm sure everybody's experienced gods in some way. Personally, I've fought and destroyed many of them. Hell, I would have killed the creator of the universe had he not fled forcing me to deal with number 37. I'm sure I'll meet up with him again.
Sent from my iPad
why does there have to be a God? (4.33 / 3) (#227)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:18:56 PM EST

could the supernatural phenomenon experienced just be part of how the universe is made?

Ghosts, psycics, out of body experiences, etc.

perhaps our life forces are part of the universe and don't like to go away just becasue the body dies.

you will know when you die....or until you have a very real experience with one of the phenomenon that makes you believe.

The God Spot (4.40 / 5) (#228)
by bryaninnh on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:19:54 PM EST

The "yearning for immortality" and widespread belief in God / Religion may also have a biological source. Some scientists believe they have found evidence of brain circuitry the inclines some people to believe in religion more strongly than others, and causes them to have "religious" experiences when this brain region is stimulated electronicly. This may also partially help explain the common themes of many religions throughout the world. Here's one link, there are many others on google. The God Spot

If you don't have faith, (4.66 / 3) (#229)
by confrontationman on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:20:39 PM EST

how do you get the demons out?
*My* personal experience (4.66 / 3) (#230)
by bjlhct on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:20:46 PM EST

I was just siting around and over a couple seconds I suddenly developed a powerful belief in, well, some supreme being anyway. I saw everything in the world as an extension of this supreme spirit.

And then, about 10 minutes later, that feeling went away.

However, me wondering what was going on, I carefully watched (?) what was going on. And remembering that, I can feel religious whenever I want to.

Thus I concluded this is just my brain playing tricks on me.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism

because they're retarded. (nt) (2.42 / 7) (#231)
by mattwnet on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:21:26 PM EST



This story's too easy to troll (4.33 / 9) (#233)
by A Proud American on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:22:41 PM EST

I hereby plead the Fifth Amendment, under which I'm granted the right to refrain from trolling.

____________________________
The weak are killed and eaten...
Catholic (5.00 / 3) (#234)
by iamadingy on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:23:14 PM EST

Once, when I was 7 or 8, my family was in church one Sunday. They were doing the Communion thing with the wafers. I asked my dad, "Are we really eating Jesus?" And he said, "It's just pretend." I always hated playing pretend.

Write-in poll option: Mu (n/t) (4.75 / 4) (#237)
by kwertii on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:50 PM EST




----
"He lives most gaily who knows best how to deceive himself." --Fyodor Dostoyevsky
atheism?? (3.00 / 3) (#238)
by iangreen on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:26:54 PM EST

i think explicitly not believing in something that you think doesnt exist is almost sillier in believing something you know doesn't exist. why even waste your time? i think atheists are all just confused. I was one once, then I realized i could define myself by what i believed in, and not some silly religion. God has meant much more than what a 'theist' considers it, across many cultures. it's such a huge idea that 'not believing in god' is almost absurd to me. even though i think most religions are silly, except for the literature and community and culture part.

As a Quaker.... (5.00 / 3) (#245)
by artsygeek on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:02 PM EST

As a Quaker the goal isn't immortality in my faith.  Neither is it in the faith of many of my friends who are Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu (and even some Christians).  The goal for me in regards to my faith is believing in the guidance of God to allow me to live a good life now, and do good for others, and if there is an eternity after this....great.  If not....oh well.

Also, not all non-theists like the label atheist.  Some are deists, some are humanists.  Also, the quasi-theistic "Process Theology" (to which I subscribe, in part) wouldn't be very well accepted by many theists.

Why is religion so prevalent? (4.25 / 4) (#248)
by nurallen on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:40:54 PM EST

Well, Christianity and other religions have had thousands of years in which to figure out a thing or two about the human soul. They totally relieve existential anxiety and provide comfort to humans amongst all the suffering and tedium of daily life.

What can compete with this in modern life? Science does not even try; this is not one of its goals. Modern psychology is a joke; psychiatry has morphed into pharmocology.

Short term, within our lifetimes, one might as well be an agnostic. Long term, I believe science will bring a closure to the mystery of the human mind - if we dont blow ourselves up first.

fashionable comments (3.50 / 2) (#255)
by Sacrifice on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:51:57 PM EST

It seems fashionable here to mock atheists as the polar opposites of theists - that is, having an unreasonable belief that there are absolutely no gods (of course, "god" is not well defined).

I wouldn't call this a straw man, because there are people who are unreasonably certain (or, at least, because they want to show their offense at religious belief in the strongest terms possible, they exaggerate).

Let's put it this way:

An atheist believes that the kind of god in the religions he's encountered is implausible.  There is a wide spectrum of certainty compared to actual knowledge about these religions and science.  Certainly an atheist would be more prone to write off subtle messages from deity as "mind playing tricks on itself" or "coincidence".

An agnostic politely declines to enter any judgment about likelihood, instead declaring the question off-limits (inherently unknowable).  There are some atheists who politely call themselves agnostic.

A theist (of a particular variety) has committed to a particular (maybe fuzzy) conception of deity/ies.  There is a wide variation of theology, certainty, and respect for science (i.e. reproducible knowledge about reality).  Most sane theists carefully define their belief to be inherently unfalsifiable by science, or are flexible enough to change their belief if necessary.  Certainly an experiential theist is more likely to cling to any pleasant coincidence mental experience as "evidence" of their righteous belief.

Why do people believe in Negroes? (2.50 / 12) (#256)
by eSolutions on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:52:17 PM EST

Why do people believe in Negroes?

Why do most people here in Utah believe in people of color, when these "Negroes" have so consistently failed to manifest themselves?

This is obviously a popular "meme." People think that Negroes will someday appear, fluttering out from the rainbows they are rumored to live in. Even seemingly-intelligent folks will leave teeth under their pillows for the Negroes to exchange for dimes. But why? Why do they believe this? Why, when Negroes so obviously do not exist? Look around you! Isn't everyone white? QED!

----
Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
--Tampax Commercial

It's not What you believe in... (4.75 / 4) (#257)
by pnagle on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:53:28 PM EST

but the fact that you believe at all. And believing everything can be as challenging as believing nothing, and more fun. That's why I started the Religion of the Week Club at my school, to see just what all these folks really do behind closed doors. It turns out they're mostly nuts, but friendly nuts, like me. What do I believe? Dance with Krishna's, Wink at the Moonies, Sit quietly with the Buddhists, Sing with the Baptists and Eat with the Jews. The rest is your problem.

religion (3.40 / 5) (#258)
by werner on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 02:53:55 PM EST

or, at least, the concepts of the afterlife/divine intervention/a supreme being etc. that transcend the earthly, is merely a futile shield against the facts of reality for those too weak of mind to accept them or, worse, a tool used to manipulate those weak minds.

the thing that seperates religion from philosophy is the "leap of faith". that's another way of saying: "you might as well make it up yourself".

the leap of faith shields any religion and its followers from the kind of scrutiny that any other scientific or philosophical postulation would incur.

for such a load of unfounded fiction, religion sure has caused a lot of suffering. the few thousand that died on september 11 was but a drop in the ocean. think crusades. think spanish inquisition. think northern ireland. think burning at the stake.

you would think, in this day and age, that most people would be at the stage where they would reject theories with absolutely no basis in fact. sadly, this is not the case, and people continue to commit atrocities in the name of entities whose existence is nothing but questionable.

Religion (4.00 / 4) (#266)
by awgsilyari on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:14:11 PM EST

is an innate, instinctual social device which aids the domination of tribal groups by alpha males. The leader, by appealing to the divine powers of an omnipotent being who is claimed to look fondly upon him, can govern not only through fear of immediate physical retribution but also through a more abstract fear of divine retribution that will continue even past physical death.

I mean, seems pretty simple to me. Just because we're intelligent enough to wrap it up in tons of rhetoric and labrynthian philosophical justifications doesn't change the fact that it's merely a more complex form of the same domination/subjugation behavior that all higher animals display.

Now flame me.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com

A story I heard at church the other day... (4.75 / 4) (#270)
by Omicron Omega on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:22:24 PM EST

A twelve year old boy became a Christian during a revival. The next week at school his friends questioned him about the experience. "Did you see a vision?" asked one friend. "Did you hear God speak?" asked another. The youngster answered no to all the questions." Well how did you know you were saved?" they asked. The boy searched for a answer and finally he said "It's like when you catch a fish, you can't see the fish or hear the fish; you just feel him tugging on your line. I just felt God tugging on my heart."

If you don't go fishing you can't feel the fish tugging. You have to believe first to feel God.

Why Religion? (4.50 / 2) (#278)
by Fredrick Doulton on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:27:59 PM EST

Fear, guidance and hope.

From the peasant's point of view:
Fear of the unknown. Where do we go when we die? It's comforting to think that there may be something beyond this life and not just decay and nothingness. Guidance, because we all need to believe there is a grand scheme at work. Life is easier when you believe someone is holding your hand the entire way and that you're never truly alone(God is always with you, children). Hope, that maybe, just maybe there is something good in this world worth believing in.

From a ruler's point of view:
Fear: Keep them afraid, and you will keep them complacent and servile. What better than an all-knowing deity who will serve out eternal punishment to those who don't follow the rules?
Guidance: Out of the pan and into the fire. You're mine!
Hope: Hope they don't find out it was all a scam. A form of control to ensure that my kingdom will forever remain unchallenged.

They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. But maybe the greatest trick the church ever pulled was convincing the world he did?

Bush/Cheney 2004! - "Because we've still got more people to kill"

The concept of God (5.00 / 2) (#279)
by sunil02169 on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:29:18 PM EST

In order to understand why vast majority of people are theist, we need to define or scope out the concept of God.

Although it's very difficult to define God, mostly because every religion and ultimately every human being has his/her own definition for God, out of their personal intellect and personal experience. Still we can by and large say that - God is some superhuman entity that is the creator of the universe, is very good in nature and is the mentor for every living and non-living entity in the universe.

Some religions (Hinduism for instance) define God as beyond any form and properties. As soon as we define God, we lose the meaning behind it. Because God by definition is beyond definition... it cannot be scoped down or captured in words or personified.

Why such complex definition? Why can't we say God is someone who is sitting in heavens and takes care of all supernatural phenomena?

We need complex definition because God is the embodiment of a very complex thought process that has evolved over the history of mankind.

When the primordial human beings first started living in societies... and began their quest for betterment, they faced lots of questions... out of these questions and their answers they started building up the "knowledge base" of humankind. Every generation of human beings inherit this knowledge base and try to add to it. Today we have a vast knowledge base compared to our primordial ancestors.

But what remains common in us... is the quest for the unknown... our curiosity and our fear of it.
We still have large number of questions that are unanswered, like - Why we are here? How do we come here? What is life? Why there are so many stars, planets, galaxies... Why the universe is the way it is? What is the purpose of this entire extravaganza? ... And most importantly what is our role in this big picture?

All these questions are really very torturing to human intellect. And even if we have imagination, it is very much limited.
So in order to cope with all these questions, we invented a superhuman concept... the concept of God. That is our answer to all that is unknown and beyond our thinking powers, until present day. That is why we cannot suitably define God in words, because as soon as we scope down God - we start facing other dreaded questions that lie outside our domain of definition. Hence God is beyond definition and beyond any form or properties.

And as famous theologian Paul Tillich has said - "God is the symbol of ultimate concern of humankind".

Maybe someday we will have more answers but until then God remains the supreme manifestation of human intellect.I t binds us together and gives us a perspective to lead our lives.

God is not a being... it is being. It is everywhere in everything... Whether you are a theist or an atheist you have to have faith. Because this faith at the bottom is in our own intellect... if you don't believe in it you are less than a human being.

So let's not get lost in the jargon and mythologies of various religions and respect the essence behind it. Let's respect our collective intelligence and have faith in it. OR in other terms - have faith in God!!

- Sunil
Why people believe (5.00 / 4) (#281)
by spakka on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:30:08 PM EST

The principal reason people believe in god is that they believe whatever their parents believed. How else do you account for the geographical distribution of religious beliefs?
Begging the question (4.50 / 2) (#290)
by twall on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:39:44 PM EST

The majority of the world population lives at levels far below what is considered poverty in the United States. Therefore, one of the following must be true: 1) they must all be really lazy 2) they must all like being poor 3) the situation must be a lot more complex than most people would interpret from the simple phrasing of the question. #3 also applies to the statement "Almost everyone believes in a Supreme Being".

You're Mormon, aren't you? (5.00 / 4) (#303)
by twall on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 03:59:19 PM EST

There aren't really two poles where everyone hangs out. You don't have the atheists on the east side and the theists on the west side. Or only those that haven't yet prayed, those that truly prayed, and those that only pretended to pray. As many people as you talk to will have a unique idea in response to the word "God". Even among those in a very strict, narrow religion like Mormonism no two people really have the same view. Those differences create a spectrum around a wide variety of beliefs, not all of which include a "God" nor are even framed around that sort of question.

The simple assumption that the question "Is there a God" is important or relevant to everyone is a faulty one.

Beware a mindset that demands a pat, easy answer for why anyone thinks and acts the way they do. Are you more complex than an ant or not?

most of you... (5.00 / 3) (#305)
by CtrlBR on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:04:56 PM EST

Most of you probably have friends who are weekly church-goers.

Hell no!

Not everybody is unlucky enough live in the US.

Here in France churchgoing is now the exception, mostly older folks and immigrant from more faithful countries. France is perhaps the most agnostic country out there but many other European countries aren't far behind.

Myself in twenty years I've seen my family going from about half being church regulars to the present situation where only one grandmother still attends...

The only thing that drags me in church are a few weddings (most people go the civil only way now) and deaths in the family. And it's not like I'm from a hardcore communist family ore something like that, to the contrary from an old pretty traditionnalist family.

If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
-- Gully Foyle

What changed my beliefs? (5.00 / 3) (#306)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:05:15 PM EST

It seems my beliefs were changed exactly in the way you describe it.  I left home, came to university, and went into science.  I'd already come to terms with the historic failings of Catholicism - Crusades, Inquisition, it's questionable scientific methods - but as a moral system, I believed in religion, and in God.

The catalyst for dropping it all was the question of sex.  I believed in waiting until marriage.  Then I saw everyone around me hooking up - girlfriends, one-night-stands - and it caused an internal dilemma.  These were my friends, and try as I might, I couldn't see anything wrong with their actions - I couldn't really see the negative consequences as long as the rules of safe-sex and respect were honoured.

My worldview underwent a number of changes that year - trying to view God as a compassionate parent figure ("Killing sends you to hell, but no-sex-before-marriage is for your own good to prevent pregnancy and diseases, not a cardinal sin").  Eventually I started looking at the other moral issues, and found that they were pretty much self-evident.  No killing/thieving/etc makes for a better society for all.  Meanwhile, I couldn't find any logical reason for many of the "extraneous" moral codes.

After that, it was only a matter of time.  I knew intellectually there was very little evidence for God, but it wasn't until a full year or two later that I was completely free of belief.

My Experience (4.80 / 5) (#309)
by IsaacW on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:11:45 PM EST

I was raised by my mother as a non-denominational Christian.  My father is an incredibly strong person and subscribed to no religion.  I was taught that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being called God created human beings, and that he sent his son Jesus to die for the sins of humanity about 2,000 years ago.  I was told that if I believed in God and in Jesus and apologized to them when I did something wrong that I would go to Heaven and be rewarded.  If I didn't do these things I would go to Hell and be punished.

The article says that some people believe because of a profoundly religious experience.  In a similar manner, I came to not believe due to a profoundly anti-religious experience.  The lead minister at the church my family attended was caught embezzeling funds from the church.  This happened when I was about 6 or 7, and it immediately put me off of the ideas that I had been taught about God.  How could he have let such a man come to lead his church?  If he was omniscient, then he must have known that it happened.  If he was also perfectly good, then he could not have allowed this to happen.  If he was also omnipotent, he must have acted to intervene.  But the intervention did not come.  The minister was allowed to commit that crime.  My belief shattered, I spent the rest of my grade school years as a rather committed anti-theist.  God as he had been described to me simply could not exist.

During my second year of college, I came to read the Dhammapada and other Buddhist teachings, and took up meditation.  I took a strictly vegetarian diet, and did not purchase or use animal goods of any kind.  I did this for some 13 months.  This was a period of incredible spiritual searching for me.  A search for meaning.  I found meaning, and I rejected Buddhism.  I have come to believe that no religion is provably (or even probably) correct.  I have realized that I have a strong sense of right and wrong that is not dependent on religion.  There is more than one religion that claims to be the "One, True Way" and there is no way to ferret out which one, if any, is actually correct.  I have come to believe that if there is an afterlife and I live according to my internal moral compass, then I will reap the rewards of that afterlife.  If there is no afterlife, then I will have still lived a fulfilling life according to what I thought was right.  I have realized that it is useless to try to convince anyone else that this is the right way to live, or that their way of life is wrong.  I present this only as an account of one man's search and discovery of the truth of his reality.

I used to believe in God (4.50 / 2) (#314)
by the on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:21:43 PM EST

After all, my first teachers were my parents and young children are liable to believe whatever they say whether it's an explanation of where your Xmas presents came from or an assurance that those people you hate really will be tortured horribly for eternity.

--
The Definite Article
Lack of evidence? (3.66 / 3) (#317)
by mmsmatt on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:26:59 PM EST

Try The Case for Christ.

Sagan said it best (4.00 / 2) (#324)
by fluxrad on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:36:00 PM EST

A quote from the late Carl Sagan, prominent atheist and accomplished cosmologist. A quote which I have memorized:

"The composite effect of life's extravagent diversity could only be understood by postulating a maker, not all of whose reasons we could grasp, who created the scene, the stage, and the subsidiary players for our benefit"

Or...we were to stupid to know how that tree got there, so we said God did it. Why people still believe today is a mystery to me.

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
Evanglicalism (4.00 / 2) (#325)
by Kuli on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:37:50 PM EST

Some people tend to be too black-and-white about the subject of grouping atheists and theists into two camps who absolutely hate eachother. That's not true. Not all atheists spend every waking moment trying to deconvert theists, and not every theist is a raging 'fundie,' like so many atheists mistake them for. Even though there are atheists who are very rabid about bringing down religion, not many are like that. I myself feel that I'm on a very different level from the evanglical atheists that I've met, just like how many Christians here in America can disagree with many other theists that God should remain in the pledge of allegience. I personally could care less whether a theist believes in God or not, til they try to push it on me. Many atheists are like this. We aren't looking to pick fights. But every "camp of thought," whether it be atheist vs. theist, pro-choice vs. pro-life, evolution vs. creationism, is going to have its evanglicals.

belief in god (4.50 / 4) (#334)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:45:42 PM EST

is merely no more than the superego at work

"god" is an ideal person who never does wrong

as a guide for proper and moral behavior, it is a useful mental device for the stupid, but no more

unfortunately, much of religion today has descended into ethnic and nationalistic jingoism and chauvinism

religion does not have a monopoly on morality: morality is mostly common sense formed from a kindergarten level understanding of right and wrong and the ability to abstract your behavior and put yourself in "someone else's shoes"

organized religion often permits, promotes, and apologises for atrocities committed in the name of cultural adventurism and as such we need to lose religion if humankind is to become truly just

when mankind washes the stink of religion from our civilizations we will have truly achieved something great... until then it is nothing but recriminations and incriminations and the age-old tribal conflict played out over and over again on the world stage... for which organized religion is merely a prop

unfortunately, for all you christians, muslims, jews, and sikhs, here's the unadulterated truth for you:

your "religion" is nothing but a whore for ethnic chauvisim and nationalistic jingoism

now wake the fuck up

you should be ashamed to believe in the mental clinkity clankity ritualisitic clap trap you ascribe to and understand what a fool you are to have your life blood used in the pursuit of prideful adventurism

shame on you

use your critical thinking skills for once and stop having them subsumed to ancient wishful thinking and tribal voo doo

i do have a little quaint respect for the bible, the torah, the quran: they do have some moral weight... but in them is also too much violence and acceptance and promotion of that.

aesop's fables has more moral authority in my view.

enough said, you stupid religious pricks. wake the fuck up from your organized religious narcotic. get some fucking independent thought, you stupid morons, dragging us all down. stupid sheep. "baaaaaahh"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

why i'm agnostic (5.00 / 5) (#335)
by halo8 on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:45:55 PM EST

I remeber been 8 in grade 6 (or something like that) and we were learning about the greeks and the egyptians, and the teacher said that they had a god of wind, and they had a god for lighting and they had a god for win. and everyone in the class laffed and laffed, and said how stupid and foolish these people were, "they didnt know about the stuff we do" back then, the teacher said. and i realized.. we dont know what causes tornadoes, or earthquakes, or why people die? we have god for thoes answers.. who is to say they are any more foolish than we are? in the future we will be just as foolish. and thats why i gave it up (relgion(anglicanisim)) i do my own thing, there may, there may not be, if there is ill be pleasently suprised, if not, i wont know any better.

How do you know the god you pray to is not Satan (5.00 / 6) (#338)
by StephenThompson on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:47:57 PM EST

Satan, being the Father of Lies likes to trick people into thinking he is god.  So he slips them a mickey and causes them to have a happy little 'experience' of oneness with the universe.  

Now how does the religious person know that in fact the experiences he has had are from God and not from the Devil?  

For truly I say unto you: a larger number of religious people appear to me to have been tricked by the Devil and have lost their way than have found the One True Path to God.

Why can't God be evil? (4.50 / 4) (#341)
by waxmop on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:50:04 PM EST

There's a Doctor Who episode about a planet where the citizens of a primitive culture have a ritual where they select the brightest from their youth, and then send them to live into a mysterious temple to serve their gods. In return, they're blessed with good weather, bountiful crops, etc.

What the poor savages don't realize is that there's a race of aliens inside the temple that hook their most brilliant young students up to a machine. Then the machine absorbs all the mental energy (thus the need for smart kids only) and stores it, killing or just mind-melting the acolytes in the process.

The aliens need the absorbed energy to rebuild their spaceship. They crashed on the planet ages ago, but didn't have the proper equipment to repair the ship themselves, so they took advantage of the psychic energy stored in the brains of the locals. They built the temple and then goaded the locals into making the regular sacrifices.

This has always struck me as the most plausible explanation for our existence.

There's probably some similar giant machine orbiting the earth, harnessing all the psychic energy released when people pray and worship. And you morons are powering it just like a bunch of livestock.

Finally, I'm really dissapointed that nobody brought up Cthulhu. I thought that you guys were cool.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar

Why ? (4.33 / 3) (#344)
by mami on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:52:01 PM EST

Because once in a while I don't feel that good about everything on earth, and then I just console myself in believing there is some ultimate justice coming from the up on high and kicks all the bad guys in the butt and gives all the good guys what they deserve.

Very simple answer, people need to have faith in some sort of ultimate justice, so that their attempt to chose in their life according to their conscience between good and bad, actually might make some sense. At least, if you didn't get justice on earth while alife, you can still hope there is some, once you are gone.

Miss (4.50 / 4) (#345)
by Hector Plasmic on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:52:25 PM EST

I think your essay doesn't really address the question you ask in the title.  For the most part, you talk about organized religion rather than belief in God (personal religion, if you will).  Even your section titles are "Why Religion?" and "Why Not Religion?"

When you do address personal belief rather than organized religion, you gloss over things.

Belief in an afterlife, for example, doesn't seem to necessarily tie into belief in God -- one could be an atheist and yet believe in some form of afterlife, it seems to me.  Where's the necessary connection?  And you summarise with the line "This belief probably arises from some sort of intuitive feeling of other lives" -- how did you reach that conclusion?

Even when you reach to "personal evidence" (what you claim is the strongest reason) you tightrope around the real questions:  How are these "evidences" evidence of the existence of God?  If you pray for rain and it rains later, how do you know the prayer had anything to do with it?  If you have visions, how do you know you're not just having a psychotic episode?  Who've you seen raised from the dead, and why didn't it make the news?  Why don't you place the "feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church" in the "superficial" category above?  You give no reason why these "personal evidences" should be considered evidence even by those who supposedly experience them!

And so it seems that your strongest reasons are actually superficial, while those you labelled superficial are actually the strongest reasons -- for organized religion, if not necessarily belief in God.

In the interest of full disclosure:  I don't believe in gods because I've seen no reason and/or evidence to support the case, and it's not the sort of thing I find myself capable of believing by default.

Religion: (none / 0) (#347)
by Kuli on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 04:53:29 PM EST

re·li·gion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

1 Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. (Does NOT apply to atheism)

2 A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. (Does NOT apply to atheism)

3 The life or condition of a person in a religious order. (Does NOT apply to atheism)

4 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. (Does NOT apply to atheism)

5 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (...This one is debatable.)

1--Obviously, atheists doubt the existence of a supernatual being, so we can't revere it.

2--While some people may think that atheism has its own big long doctrine of beliefs, it doesn't. I know many atheists who doubt the truth of the theory of evolution, who are pro-life, and believe religion does good, even though they don't belong to one themselves. The only thing atheists have in common is the doubt of the supernatural.

3--Atheism has no religious order. We do not attend congregations, for the most part, even though there are atheist groups out there that meet every so often. There is no absolute set doctrine that all atheists must follow in order to be atheist, other than the doubt of God, and many atheists have even had a hot degree of fights over that topic.

4--Atheists obviously have no spiritual leader. We don't have the Atheist Jesus to Guide Us in the Right Direction.

5--I say this is debatable because there are some very evangelistic atheists out there, who I personally think need to lighten the hell up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

i am extremely angry at organized religions (3.33 / 6) (#354)
by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:05:25 PM EST

islam, once a grand and rich and noble religion that stood at the forefront of civilization, is today drowning in arabic chauvinism

christianity in the west is used by the most feebleminded intolerant sort to launch their lack of understanding attacks on poor women (antiabortion) homosexuals and anyone who is on the fringe of society or isn't jingoistically nationalistic

jews have successfully gone, in one generation, from being oppressed in germany, to oppressors in the middle east

anyone who calls themselves a jew, or a christian, or a muslim, and does not subscribe to blind ethnic chauvinism and nationalistic intolerance has successfully divorced themselves from the tenets of religion anyways, and you probably embrace a deeper, more fundamental understanding of right and wrong that really has nothing to with your religion anymore

in a different time, religion served a useful purpose, but nowadays, we really need to outgrow it if mankind is to have a just civilization

a lot of us have outgrown the ancient clap trap

and here we wait, for the rest of you morons to catch up

until you do, there is nothing but more of the ancient cycle of violence and suffering

the fringe has gotten control of the message of organized religions, and they will bury it

any right thinking person rejects organized religions nowadays

when will the rest of you catch up?!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

'god' is irrelevant (4.50 / 4) (#368)
by peckerhead on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:17:34 PM EST

does a 'god' exist?
does a 'god' not exist?

who cares, it makes no difference at all.  it makes absolutely no difference in my life what-so-ever.

let's see if i've got this right:  i'm supposed to kiss some god's ass and think of myself as nothing except in reference to this 'god'?  i'm supposed to grovel before power?  i'm supposed to be a n/ch/wigger slaving for the good of a 'god' as opposed to working for my own good? is that what 'god' thinks?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT 'god' THINKS!!!

oh please please please, can i be what i am not for a nobody like god.

'god' is a weapon, not a crutch as others suggest.  godders use the proxy of a 'god' to terrorize, intimidate and emotionally abuse others.  religion is an emotional disease: the institutionalization of emotional abuse (systematic diminshment of others).

i don't need a 'god' because i'm not beating anybody down.

forget IQ, what's really important is EQ (emotional quotient) and emotional servitude means EQ=zero.

What do you call a belief like this: (5.00 / 4) (#375)
by grzebo on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:24:51 PM EST

I am a sort of 'strong agnostic': I don't know whether god exists; I know that even if he exists, he hasn't any (explainable) influence on the world, but I also know that no one else can be sure that god exists. Thus I can discard religions as populist gibberish (though sometimes useful), much like atheists do, but I do not know for sure that God doesn't exist.


"My God, shouts man to Himself,
have mercy on me, enlighten me"...
Look I have an opinion (2.25 / 4) (#376)
by auraslip on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:27:53 PM EST

and it's valid.

LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
124

Don't just bash religion (4.50 / 2) (#382)
by jnemo131 on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:37:21 PM EST

It pisses me off to see all these posts bashing organized religion with such extreme animosity, calling all those who might go to church on Sunday supreme fools. I'm not religious, this isn't a post in defense of them, but it seems rather hyppocritical. Everyone hates religion bc it manipulates ppl into being mindless drones and can cause destruction. But this anger that is being raised in response to religion is just as bad. Consider how ppl originally converted to Christianity: someone called them immoral and simple barbarians. This is no better. All they want is something to make their lives a little easier. Let them have it, if reforming them means becoming the worst aspects of religion.

"I heard the droning in the shrine of the sea-monkey"
-The Pixies
nothing new (4.66 / 3) (#386)
by dogwalker on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:41:17 PM EST

I've skimmed at least the first two layers of discussion, and I haven't really seen anyone bringing anything new to the discussion. There's the usual "religion is backwords and stupid why can't we just grow up" vs "well atheism is a religion too cuz they believe stuff." I find it sort of interesting how religious people feel the need to justify themselves by putting down evangelical atheists. "Well I'm religious, but at least I'm not obnoxious about it."

What I'm trying to get to here is, what's the logical conclusion of the "Atheists who try to convert people are just as bad as religious people who do same" argument? On one hand, it's making a value judgement that it's better to be quiet about your beliefs then to try to promote them. While that may seem inappropriate in other areas, in matters of religion it seems to be common sense. "Don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table."

But on the other hand, what does that say about the ideal state of belief? It seems to be saying that you should believe in things in a heartfelt but quiet manner. If it mattered what the particulars of what you believed were, then it would make sense to get people aligned on the particulars. But quietly believing in whatever you want will lead to people believing all kinds of crazy things. So it must not matter whether people pray to gentle Anglo-Saxon Jesus, or a ten-foot-tall bright green Jesus.

I used to be a little irritated by the whole "atheism is a religion" thing. I mean, for one, it seemed like a whole lot stretching definitions in order to prove a point that isn't a good one to begin with. But lately I've come to think of that argument as a sort of stealth humanist one. Atheism is a religion, fine. Now we all have religions, and there's little point in arguing which one's the best, so let's just get on with our lives and leave religion out of them.
--
share and enjoy

I don't care cuz I am not (3.50 / 2) (#389)
by techwolf on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:44:28 PM EST

religious unless you consider Science (not scientology) to be a religion. other than that don't push it on me (either way) and I won't break your legs.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

The politics of stupidity and fear (4.50 / 4) (#392)
by lanfear on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:48:43 PM EST

I believe in religion itself as much as I believe in Communism and Fascism.  I believe that any good that has come out of organized religion for the betterment of mankind has been an unexpected and often unwarranted side effect.
Step away from maybe the last three hundred years and tell me that every religion has not been a political entity, a maker of laws and a secular judge of supposedly non-secular crimes.  Now look at what we consider modern history, where countries are now just barely coming out of the stranglehold of Politics as Faith.  
We have the Religious Right trying to bring the U.S. back into the dark ages under the guise of a Republican Party that should not in principle agree with their views, but the voting block is just too tempting.  We have terrorist under the guise of Islamists that any Christian Fundamentalist would be happy to have in their camp if their skin was a different color and held a different book, actions completely irrespective.

And now we are often asked to separate religion from God when belief is being discussed, like there is some orthogonal relationship between whom people oppress as a group and what people believe as individuals.  I do not believe in God, because my personal understanding of the world has little room for a God of my own definition, or any religious definition that I've found so far.  I am often biased against people that do have a strong belief in God because I feel they are ignorant or stupid.  If religion works for you, especially if it gets you through to the next day without taking out yourself or those around you, then I want you to believe as much as possible that you are a part of something special and sanctifying.

Irrationality, Differential Equations, Doubt (4.46 / 13) (#394)
by OldCoder on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 05:57:33 PM EST

Irrationality
Intelligent people begin to notice, usually in their early teens or thereabout, that other people aren't rational. If you're lucky (or blessed) and have a great deal of intelligence or perhaps good teachers, you begin to realize that you yourself are not rational. This comes along a few years later.

Lots of bright young people insist for a decade or two that they are indeed rational. Yet preferring life over death, pleasure over pain, fattening food over health food, sex, drugs and rock n roll over anything, all these are emotional, subjective things. Some are necessary for survival, but even survival isn't logically necessary. Except that only survivors are around to voice an opinion. Accepting your own irrationality is a neccessary part of maturity and wisdom. So far as I can tell.

A lot of the weakness of the atheistic and agnostic position, I think, comes from the (infantile) need to believe in one's own rationality. I admit there are also some strengths to the atheistic position, but a lot of the weaknesses come from this infantile emotional attachment to a self-perception of rationality. This attachment may be a basic (genetic?) human need. Perhaps it makes people feel stronger to believe in their own rationality. An understandable superstition, I suppose.

Physics
Study enough physics and you'll be brought to the realization that something dearly loves differential equations. The universe appears, so far as we humans can tell, to be made of differential equations, along with some others. Prime numbers and lots of abstract math have so far not been found in abundance by the observationalist sciences. Differential and difference equations are everywhere, in everything, all the time, zillions of them. This confounds our understanding of origins. All this math cannot be an accident, unless you drastically change the meaning of the word "Accident". Believing that the universe was so constructed that only systems following the math of differential equations could manifest themselves, that all other physical systems are excluded naturally by some inevitable characteristic of the big bang, is as fantastic as believing in the Tooth Fairy. May as well believe in God. You can call this Argument from Design, if you wish, but sticks and stones...

Doubt
Feynmans naive belief that the religious do not doubt and that scientists necessarily doubt is ahistorical and unsupported by the facts. There are whole bookshelves of discourse on the doubt and the struggle against doubt in the monotheistic literature. I believe the Catholics have been especially prolific in this regard. I dimly remember somebody mentioning Augustine or Aquinas as writers on this topic.

The classicality of the religious struggle with doubt is embodied in the very familiarity of the phrase "Oh Lord — give me a sign!" (Redundantly but brilliantly immortalized by Steve Martin in the cinema "LA Story").

Doubt is an essential part of being human, not just of being a scientist. We must excuse Dr. Feynman for confusing the two, as in his case, the comingling of the two states was most fortuitous.

What's that sound? Where did I put my pen? where am I? Will this open the door? Is this the answer to my homework? Are you really my friend? Will you be true to me? Did I code the algorithm right? Is the check in the mail? Am I good enough?

Practical doubt is as normal as breathing. If believing were easy, how could God give us credit for it? I don't get much credit for believing in my own existance, it's too easy. Believing in God, however, is a challenge.

Let me also let you in on a religious secret. It is a matter of "Best Practices" in many religious communities to hide ones doubts and express certainty or more certainty than one might feel, when talking to impressionable youngsters or atheists. Setting a good example is held to be more important than the brutal and detailed version of truthfullness, especially when time is limited. Outright lying is, so far as I know, not permitted, but one is also forbidden to lead another astray. So if ones words might be misconstrued, or might have a bad effect, it is usually considered better to hide some personal doubts. This can give explicit doubters like Feynman the impression that religious people are more certain of God than Feynman was of his own existance. Religious intellectuals at Feymans level would naturally tend to express themselves in a nuanced way, but those lacking in gifts or education tend to fall back on the safe and secure "Perfect Faith" tactic, lest one run afoul of God's complex rules. This can also contribute to the false impression that only the uneducated believe in God.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder

convenient ... (none / 0) (#399)
by Sacrifice on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:08:01 PM EST

You know that (your?) religion isn't the rational conclusion - so deny reason: "there is no such thing as reason; not believing is just as irrational!"

Nice.

Theism (4.00 / 2) (#403)
by mcgrew on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:20:08 PM EST

I believe in God mainly because He has manifested Himself to me. I have witnessed miracles. I know God. Perhaps I am insane.

However, there are questions that, for now, only religion can answer.

What is consciousness? What is sentience? Why is it there? How can a being that can even ask these questions exist? Does it really seem likely to anyone that the pyramids, skyscrapers, automobiles, laptop computers, are only accidents of entropy?

The aformentioned laptop, which was fashioned by humans, is incredibly complex, with millions of microscopic transistors (each an accident of entropy, in the athiest's view). But compared to the humans who designed and built them, they are laughingly simple. Yet they are fashioned by a consciousness, and we are not?

The very idea is so mind boggling as to be laughable.

Speaking of which- laughter itself is proof of God. What evolutionary attribute could it have? How does laughter in amy way have any survival value?

Laughter is the only thing that really separates us from the other animals.

Why do we laugh?

Sleep is another. It seems counter-survival to me, despite theories I have heard- it keeps you quiet and still at night- yet it doesn't keep you from stinking, or snoring. Why did evolution not get rid of snoring before our species existed? And we are not the only species that snores- I have heard housecats snore. I have seen dogs dream, twitching their feet as if running, eyes moving.

What evolutionary purpose could dreaming possibly have?

All the evidence points to God. Little if any points away.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie

A book (4.33 / 3) (#405)
by miah on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 06:22:32 PM EST

Pascal Boyer wrote a book entitled "Religion Explained" that basically states that people are religious because their minds were prepared by evolution that way. The change came when different inference systems in the brain started to contradict each other. This led to burial rituals, the belief that the dead are watching you, etc. He uses psychological axioms about hindsight bias and other things that I don't remember three semesters out of psyche class. It's a good read.

Religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is the biker grade crystal meth of the masses.
SLAVEWAGE
This is a great story. (4.50 / 4) (#413)
by pocide on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 07:11:29 PM EST

Not because it calls the existence of omnipotent beings into question but because it ignited some great discussion. I look forward to more quality work like this in the future.

I don't follow these types of religions because, if there is a god, he's probably busy helping the billions of people already praying to him.

I would rather carve my own path in life than have some invisible force hold my hand as I tiptoe through it. Plus, I have better things to do with my time. Things like making Devil music.

*** ANONYMIZED ***

Religion is absolutely necessary in human society. (4.00 / 3) (#415)
by Roman on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 07:15:34 PM EST

Religion was never created on purpose, there was no meeting among the most infuential members of a stone age cave society, where they got together with an agenda of keeping up low morale. Everything was much more trivial and much more complicated at the same time. Early religion was created from lack of understanding of nature around us, from something that could not be explained by the early humans. For example for your cat you are probably a god. You decide who gets the punishment and grace (we are not talking about every single cat out there, the free-thinking atheist cats do not fit into this example :) The early shamans have appeared as first religious leaders, those who could 'talk' to the gods and translate their will to the people. The con men, the best of the kind, they really believed in what they were doing. They were the early doctors and they predicted the future, they talked to the dead. They were the spiritual leaders for their people, and leaders like that have powers beyond the other members of a tribe. Every strong leader needed a shaman of his own. A shaman can act as a talisman - symbol of good luck and fortune. He tells the people when the weather will be good for the crops and when the war will be won, and if the shaman is lucky, he becomes a VIP of his tribe, and if he is not very lucky, the society will get rid of him. In this way religion becomes just another tool for a strong leader, this of-course brings the 'money' into play, so a religious institution becomes rich and powerful, and everybody goes to a shaman - there are no lawyers or doctors of judges yet.

Over time these professions appear as stand alone institutions and shamans lose some of the authority. This means a religious crisis. Some very educated people come out of this system (Socrates, Confucious, Luter). Socrates movement serves as a prototype for the early Christianity, including the purification of the body and the soul by fasting for example. (Christians of this planet are in debt to Socrates for many things, one of them is fasting, he was asking his followers to purify their minds and bodies by staying abstinent of all things like food and sex for 40 days.) From a poly-god society such as the ancient Greece, the humanity moves to Christianity. Christianity is not an example of a mono-god religion such as Judaism or Islam (who see the Christianity as a lower type religion since there is no single deity but there is a holly trinity.)

Do people need religion today? This is a different story. We should accept that 95% of population of this planet believes in one god or another, or believes in some supernatural powers and superstitions or at least horoscopes. Roots of these believes can be traced deep into the unconscious.

A woman I know told me once: -Every time when I do renovations in my appartment, I get an invitation to a job interview. (She said more than that, I am just simplifying.) She believes that there is a supernatural connection between such events in her life. The answer to this question is simple: Observe a group of people large enough who are doing renovations, and another group of people who are not doing any renovations. Keep your observations for some time and ask yourself a question - does the group of people who are doign renovations get more job interviews as a whole, than the other group? Is it true that those people who are doing renovations are going through more changes in their lives then other people? Is there statistical truth to the statement of that woman? There are two possibilities here: Either there will be no statistically important difference between the two groups, or the difference will be due to the renovation (someone falls from a ladder and breaks a leg.) - but this is the way nature allows humans to create superstitions for themselves.
This is how brains of humans and of animals work. Brain notices a correlation between actions and creates connections, and there is a good reason for it. If an animal is going to the river to drink some water, and it survived the trip - nothing bad happened to it, it was not killed and it did not meet any predators on the way, and in the whole, the path was safe and easy, then the next time the animal will use the same path to get to the river. Animals do not have any choice, they must rely on this simple mechanism of association even when the cause and effect are not proven at all logically. It is possible that the animal will create wrong connections, but in large (statistically speaking) these connections will work well. This is the same mechanism that creates superstitions and this is what the primitive religions are based upon. This tells us something - without any exact and proven facts human beens will create connections between events that the human been observes. If meat and mild are put together but without the cold of a refrigirator, and if the hands are not exactly washed and if someone touches the meat and then touches the milk, then E-Coli can and probably will spread from meat to milk and the milk will become poisonous. This is how a need for cosher food comes into this world.

Do we need religion? Until such a time when the society consists of 100% educated people, religion will exist on this planet, whether it is necessary or not. I think religion is necessary, people will sooner believe in something they cannot understand (due to the way nature taught us,) rather than believing in something that some person has logically or mathematically deducted and there is a good reason for this - science is much yonger than religion and our nature doubts our mental abilities. Nature taught us to survive on insticts but our intellect has shown us that it can also be used to destroy us as a species. Pure intellect possibly is not a very good tool to keep a species alife. Pure intellect has no moral and does not believe in absolute truths and it requires precise definitions and proves and theories. Intuition is based on the subconsciousness, on our nature, it does not require precise proves and it has nothing against blind theism as long as it supports the simple program built into the species - the survival program. Intuition relies on simple observations and creates connections between actions, and these connections maybe wrong, but it does not matter. Intuition has nothing against absolutes but that does not matter either. The point of the subconsciousness is to keep life for the purpose of life and not to seek truth for the purpose of truth. Possibly our intuition, our animal subconsciousness is the only reason why there is still human life on this planet 50 years after creation of atomic weapons.


I am an atheist, of-course. There are some theists that make a huge mistake, they try to prove to me that there is a god and there must be a god. They do not realize that I came to my own conclusions and I am a convinced atheist, not a 'believing' atheist. You cannot 'believe' that there is no god. In order to be a real atheist you must be sure of it. You cannot convince a real atheist that there is a god, thus the people who 'converted' from atheism to theism were never real atheists. Real believers also cannot be converted into other religions or be converted to become atheists. The moment a 'believer' tries to prove to me existence of god, I understand that this person is either stupid or an atheist (more likely the former than the later.) You cannot prove existence of god, you also cannot disprove it. If you think about it, an attempt to prove existence of a deity is equivalent to admitting to nonbelieving. You must completely believe in god - no reason needed in order to be trully religious.

Why do people believe in Communism? (3.25 / 4) (#437)
by lowlife on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 07:52:00 PM EST

Or other organized religions?  Why do people believe in Atheism, which seems to be a religion in itself, trying to convert people. Myself, I don't give a shit what you believe in, as long as you leave me the fuck alone.

Your mind begins to clear.

a comment on scientific doubt (4.66 / 3) (#441)
by oddman on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 07:57:28 PM EST

"it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. ..."

A rhetorical point before the meaty one.  This statement starts with the statement of an absolute but concludes that statements of absolutes are anathema to proper understanding.  I find that rather odd, if not contraadictory.

Now the point I wanted to make.  It is a shame that Feynman forgets about certainty.  His certainty that causation is regular and effective, that the scientific method nets you favorable results and that we aren't brains in vats for if none of these certainties hold what is the point of our science?  It seems that for the vaunted role of doubt in science certainty is just as important.

Easy.. (3.75 / 8) (#445)
by opusman on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:05:57 PM EST

Why do most people on the earth believe in a supreme being of some sort, especially one who fails to manifest himself to us?

Most people are stupid.

Its something to do n/t (3.66 / 3) (#457)
by schwar on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:28:20 PM EST



Expectations (4.50 / 6) (#458)
by The Writer on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:29:39 PM EST

Alright, since I've already jumped in the fray in various threads here, I might as well throw in something for people to consider.

The author of the article said:

Why do most people on the earth believe in a supreme being of some sort, especially one who fails to manifest himself to us?

My response: how do you know he hasn't manifested himself to us? Or, to put the question another way, what, in your mind, constitutes a valid "manifestation"? I'm curious to know. Are we expecting some magical being to descend from the heavens and proclaim himself God? Are we expecting some miraculous phenomenon to happen which cannot be explained? Are we waiting for a voice from the heavens to say "I am God"? If God, or whoever/whatever's out there were to boom from the heavens to the earth, "I am God", would he speak English? Or would he speak German, perhaps? What is our requirement for a "manifestation" that we all agree on, so that when it happens, we can say firmly that God exists, and he just did XYZ?

The problem, as I see it, is that we are expecting some physical phenomena to happen, perhaps something out of the ordinary, or perhaps something that is not permitted by physical laws. But many people have claimed sightings of UFO's and strange beings, and most of us write them off as cronies. So strange phenomena is not a valid criteria for God, if he exists, to prove himself to us. If indeed he is the Creator who set down the very consistent laws by which the physical world operates, would he expect us to believe him if he broke these laws in some arbitrary way? We would not believe, because he is inconsistent with the laws he laid. Since the rest of the universe is so consistent, we would question whether an inconsistent God could create a consistent universe.

Furthermore, the fact that we expect a physical "manifestation" of God seems to stem from a perhaps subconcious concept that God is somehow physical, and that if he were real, we ought to be able to see him in some physical form. But I submit that he cannot be physical; because we know from astronomy that all things physical has a beginning. If God were physical, he is not God, because he would be created.

Then you may argue, God is perhaps not physical, but surely he can appear physically to convince us skeptics? Sure he can, but even if he did, would you believe him? In what form should he appear? As a shining humanoid figure? As some disembodied hand writing "I am God" across the sky? But this contradicts the consistency of the universe, and so is not admissible criteria. Or maybe he will appear as some strange animal, perhaps? Or maybe a large, conspicuous object in the sky? But if it were consistent with the rest of the physical universe, we would not believe it; because it would just be a natural consequence of well-known (or perhaps yet undiscovered) physical principles. Even if it were an act of God for such a physical phenomenon to happen at a particular time, we would not be able to distinguish between a universe with laws "tuned" by God so that such a thing happens, and a universe without a God, whose laws just happen to cause it to happen.

Therefore, I posit that any true "manifestation" of God, which is truly convincing, cannot be something physical.

Case in point: I believe that Jesus Christ was the manifestation of God as a human being. But did that manifestation convince people? Well, it did for some, but for others, they either write him off as a fake, or, for people of this generation, we say that his followers embellished his story. You see, this is precisely the problem: God is a consistent God, judging from the consistent universe around us; but as a result of that, whatever he does is consistent with the rest of the universe, and therefore we don't believe because it's not different from everything else. Does that mean Jesus was just an ordinary human being, since he is limited by physical laws? But you see, the problem is that he did perform things that transcended physical laws, but we don't believe it either. We say that his disciples made it up.

Furthermore, who are we to demand that God appeared in a certain way so that our petty requirements for a valid God-manifestation are satisfied? Why should the creator, if indeed he exists, follow our every whim?

The point is that we will never be convinced that God exists merely by some outward phenomenon alone. Even if God were to drop from the sky tomorrow morning, perhaps riding on some meteor or something, we would not hail him as God, we'd just think somebody is playing a joke on us, or it's just some advanced alien from outer space. See the problem? We have our own expectations of what God is, or what he must do to affirm his existence. But from his point of view, he has already done everything needed to give proof of his existence: the incredible consistency of the universe (as far as we can tell), the beautiful balance of the universe and the principles behind it, even our own physiological and psychological makeup. But we write it all off as "mere consequences" of natural laws.

The only way you can be truly assured that God exists is if you contact him in the realm where he is in, that is, the spiritual realm, not the physical realm. Nothing physical will ever be a convincing proof of God's existence.

Furthermore, God has already done his part in giving us sufficient indication of his existence; but because we were created with a free will, he must by necessity give room for us to choose whether or not to accept this evidence. He is not a small-hearted, micro-managing being, as can be seen from the incredibly great variety of the natural world. Hence, he cannot give insufficient clues, since then we can argue with him that he is unfair to require us to make a decision without giving us any information. Neither can he give us conclusive proof, because then our free will is not free will. Sure, we would technically still have a will to choose, but what kind of free will is it if we cannot freely exercise it, since the evidence logically requires us to believe him? We would effectively be forced to choose him no matter what. That's not free will, that's slavery.

God in fact has given a lot of clues, and, in a sense, has communicated to us what his will is. It's just that we have chosen to disregard it, because it fails to meet our expectations. It doesn't match our idea of what it should be. Or perhaps it runs counter to our philosophy of life. He will always respect our free will, so he has no choice but to allow us to go our own way in spite of all that he has done.

That's why it's not reasonable to expect God to perform some miracles according to our own whims, or to expect some physical manifestation of him according to our idea. Yes, he has manifested physically, but it's not out of a whim; it is with a definite purpose. If we are not convinced, then it's our expectations which are misplaced. Instead of demanding that God follow some arbitrary criteria of ours in order to "prove" himself, I submit that the proper attitude is to let him, if indeed he exists, decide how to prove himself to us, and to keep our eyes, mind, and heart, open to whatever proof he chooses to give, not holding on to whatever preconceptions we may have.

In my own experience, the only way to find living proof of God is to meet him personally, in the spiritual sense, not the physical sense. He does wish to reveal himself, but since he will never violate our free will, only those who actively seek him will find him. He may try, through various circumstances and people in our life, to catch our attention; but ultimately, only those who choose to pay attention will find him. He will not appear uninvited if one is not willing to receive him. He really meant it when he gave us a free will. I have found in my own experience that he does prove himself when one's attitude is proper, and one is not preoccupied with preconceptions.

Empiricism (4.85 / 7) (#459)
by ghjm on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:32:37 PM EST

Premises:

1. In the environment of our adaptation, humans were cursorial pack hunters and social plant foragers. ("Cursorial hunter" means animals who pursue prey in groups, relatively slowly, for long periods of time, until the prey is exhausted.)

2. In some unspecified way, the self-aware conscious mind is not the only process at work directing human behavior. (You can think of this as the Freudian unconscious if you like, but all I'm saying is that our self-aware thoughts are the tip of an iceberg, contents not specified.)

Analysis:

As cursorial hunters, humans have an immediate and obvious need for keen vision and the ability to memorize the layout of a relatively large active range. As plant foragers, humans also need to know what features (plants and fertile land) exist within a large range. In both cases, humans who acquire better information about the features of their environment will be able to use this directly to their own benefit. Humans gain from investigating anything that looks new, different or interesting, because knowing more about it than other animals results in more available food. As a result, there is an evolutionary advantage to building a brain with unconscious desires to investigate the unknown, and psychological rewards for making interesting inferences or deductions based on that investigation.

As social animals, humans also have strong evolutionary pressure to fare well within the social environment. We are therefore very concerned with predicting and provoking reactions from other humans, cheating, detecting cheaters, and so forth.

The human state of "transcendence" or "enlightenment" is one of the most highly desired experiences in our cognitive inventory. This is achieved when we make profound new insights into interesting problems. It can also be experienced "falsely" when we ingest particular chemicals. The fact that it can be produced chemically is a good indication that it is physiological in origin.

So, when we contemplate things that are "beautiful" (like sunsets, the night sky, or the complexity within a grain of sand), we are in fact satisfying our evolved desire to investigate potentially interesting new aspects of our environment. We are programmed to reward ourselves for achievement in this area by causing the conscious mind to experience transcendence. As we categorize those things through which we can achieve transcendence, we think of them as "spiritual" in the same way that we think of those things through which we can achieve orgasm as "sexy." We put together the sum of all these experiences and create a locus of memory and predictive knowledge.

Aside from this, the other major area where we create a locus of memory and predictive knowledge is in our social interactions with other humans. The mechanisms of our brain for cataloging this sort of information are designed with a focus towards other people. Therefore it seems natural to us to assert personhood for any entity that attracts sufficient memory and knowledge to itself. This conceived personhood of our spiritual experiences is what we call God.

Holding this belief does not particularly interfere with our ability to copulate or acquire food, because it rarely leads to predicive assertions that are wrong (at least, it did not to so in the environment of our evolution). As a result there is no evolutionary pressure one way or another, and the "God thing" can persist as long as the evolutionary adaptations that give rise to it remain in effect.

In our current environment, for which we are severely maladapted, God-belief can cause serious problems. It can cause us to form predictive beliefs that incorrectly anticipate the external environment, which is clearly undesirable (it denies us opportunities for food and copulation). However, it can also lead to situations where specific individuals benefit greatly in terms of food and copulation. There is probably a stable equilibrium in which a certain proportion of the population maintains God-belief.

Our only real hope as a species is to use our intellectual capabilities to change both the environment and ourselves so as to reduce our degree of maladaptaion. Perhaps someday it will be possible to isolate the genetic or environmental basis for God-belief and eliminate it from our population. Even if we never achieve this glorious end, it can inspire researchers for generations to come. When I think about how amazing and unique this would be, it almost makes me believe in something larger than myself...

-Graham

Hypothesis: From Human Pattern Matching (4.75 / 4) (#463)
by cmholm on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:35:02 PM EST

I agree with the reasons the article listed for why theist beliefs exist. I'd like to add another: one of the core survival traits homo sapies sapies has acquired is a highly developed pattern matching ability (either via the hand of God, or random DNA mutation caused by background radioactivity...aka, the hand of God).

This ability has served men as they searched for prey, edible plants, and water. It also served to stimulate thinking as men sought to make sense of the patterns they perceived. Such thinking became highly abstract, from "that cloud looks like a fish", to "e=mc^2". Since human pattern matching is always on, we often find a pattern where there are not, or at least it's not what we at first suppose.

As humans perceived organization in nature that mirrored the organization of their own activities, it might have been a very short conceptual step to imagining powerful organizers, seen but dimly or not at all. A vast and varied culture could grow around this kernel in the imagination of men.

Well, it's a thought, anyway.

God doesn't play dice... (4.33 / 3) (#464)
by banffbug on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:35:48 PM EST

he plays rock, paper, and scissors.

Quit picking rock, fool
atheism != religion (5.00 / 3) (#473)
by harryh on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 08:56:12 PM EST

> atheism, as other posters have implied, is as much a religion as christianity.

At the core of christianity is the idea that you must have faith in various things (including god) in the absence of any evidence.

Atheism just says that there is no evidence for a God so obviously one doesn't exist.  (in more Feinman like terms you could say that it is extrememly unlikely that one exists).  You know how you don't think there is an invisible flying elephant follwing you around all the time?  Atheists don't think there is a God in exactly the same way.  There is no religious style faith involved.

"Calling atheism a religion (5.00 / 3) (#479)
by carlossch on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:20:40 PM EST

is like calling bald a hair color" - Don Hirschberg

Carlos
He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.

It's to explain death? (4.50 / 2) (#481)
by sramkrishna on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:32:52 PM EST

I think the biggest reason is to explain what happens to you after you die.  It's the biggest unknown of all and I think the fact that there is someone out there to take care of you after you're dead seems to be the most compelling.

Just my personal belief.

sri

if there was a god. (4.00 / 2) (#486)
by tuj on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 09:59:49 PM EST

I met God this afternoon
Riding the uptown train
I said, "Don't you have better things to do?"
He said, "If I did my job, what would you complain about?"
    -Peter Stuart
I don't understand the question. (4.66 / 3) (#503)
by opendna on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:56:25 PM EST

Those of you who've read Stranger in a Strange Land might decipher this: I don't think you can grok God unless you are now or once were a believer. That's another way of saying that I understand that there are people who believe in God and... that's about it.

Personally, "belief" and "faith" are very alien concepts. I say I have "faith" that an unreliable friend will show up at a party because he said he would. I say I "believe" something because it's fun to adopt it as an assumption, perhaps even a hypothesis. You can imagine, then, how strange it seems to me that so many invest so much energy in their convictions. Without an appreciation for the meaning, it's all rather curious, in a manic sort of way.

I don't believe in "order" and I suppose therein lies my fundamental conflict with religion, in any conventional sense: Religion makes chaos appear orderly and complex things seem simple. Religion gives meaning to the meaningless and makes sense of the senseless. In short, religion requires the acceptance that there is a Master Plan for the universe and that something (God) is in control.

For me, things that appear orderly are actually chaotic, simple things are complex, meaningful things are meaningless, sensical things are nonsense, there is no plan and everything is totally out of control.

It's all rather beautiful, in my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone lives otherwise.

I understand that religion is also the order that is applied to one's life; the ritual and ethics and so on. Personally, I'd rather spend my life discovering my nature than engaging in a struggle to regiment myself according to alien values.

I suppose I could just say "Hail Eris!" and be done with it.

Well (4.00 / 3) (#506)
by ShooterNeo on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:11:24 PM EST

As an individual, you end up pretty much having to believe there is a point to it all, even if there isn't.  Not only will I as an individual inevitably die, all my future descendents eventually will.  No matter what happens, entropy will catch up with every thinking device in the universe given time.  At this point, nothing I did or didn't do will mean anything, as in our universe there will be no entity capable of reading any traces my existence left, in the unlikely event there are any by the time the universe runs out of free energy.  

So what's the point?  Why strive to succeed?  Why not just end it all, or use drugs to blow out the cells I do have?  Therefore, while I believe what the evidence says (in a similar manner to what Feynman describes : probabilities for everything), I have to assume that outside the box of our observable universe there is something that will be affected permanently by what I do here.  Inside the universe, though, I believe the evidence is pretty certain : religions are parasitic memes that exploit this fundamental human need.  Human brains have to make a few assumptions that aren't really warranted for the human they control to continue living (because anyone who sees a dead person quickly realizes there is nothing left), and religions use this crack to infect their hosts.

An intelligent person does need to make a few assumptions to continue living, but everything else they should evaluate by the observable evidence within our world.  

Where it gets tricky is religions usually state in some way a particular set of rules for how ones actions in this world might affect whatever is out there.  Generally speaking, the religions state these rules in such a way to make the religious meme self reinforcing.  For instance, Christianity, one of the more popular ones, states that if one doesn't obey the rules the religion sets (and these rules are lax or strict depending on the particular 'church') one will receive infinite punishment, and vice versa.  

It is impossible to ever determine what is outside the box of our observable universe.  However, to continue living I have to assume that not only does the end of life have some sort of continued awareness, that whatever the real rules are are fair.  A sort of justice.  Any rewards or punishments are based on however much free will we really have, and what we knew ahead of time.  Infinite punishment for finite wrongs and infinite rewards for finite good does not fit this, so I reject all Christianity and Judaism on these grounds.  I don't believe in 'symbolism' either : rituals and icons have no more meaning than whatever physical effects are involved (a candle is a flame, nothing more : burn someone to death in a ritual sacrifice and that is exactly what one has done, no more no less).  I reject Hinduism and all pagan rituals systems based on this.  

So here's a new one, a meme I'm going to live my life by.  I'm going to treat the world as the best science tells me it is, with the assumption that some sort of afterlife exists and it's fair.  The best science agrees with observable events, with nothing more added.  Thus, while I believe in basic mechanics and electromagnetism, until someone actually observes negative matter or a wormhole I'm going to assume they exist only in the symbolic math.  On a further note : despite whatever society says, a person is only accountable for actions they reasonably predicted ahead of time.  That is, you only made a mistake if you knew what the negative consequences were before you did it.  The same for good deeds.  

Contradictions? (4.00 / 2) (#507)
by roystgnr on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:12:34 PM EST

This is probably the biggest obstacle: in the quivering mass of contradicting religions (many even contradicting themselves), how is one supposed to find the truth?

No religion contradicts itself: if you think you've found one, just ask its' practitioners.  You will be quickly assured that the contradiction is only apparant, and of the two seemly contradictory statements only the one which most closely matches the practitioners' or their leaders' current beliefs is a real reflection of God's will.

Flood (4.66 / 6) (#508)
by bugmaster on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:15:54 PM EST

Actually, the flood stories probably did have a common source -- though a bit more mundane than gods or aliens.

One of the earliest (if not the earliest) recorded flood stories comes from Sumeria. According to the ancient Sumerians, the gods designed humans to be their autonomous food gathering units. Unfortunately, the design had a bug, and humans started multiplying without an end in sight, taking up all the space and yammering all the time. Rather than refactor, the gods did what any Perl hacker would do -- they rm -rf-ed the whole humanity. Or tried to. A god named Enki, who was not as shortsighted as the rest, intervened, saved a few humans, and forced the gods to refactor by introducing the Death package. BTW, the translation I read at school really does sound like a changelog: the gods originally see humans in terms of functionality and design.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, the Sumerians lived on a flat plain between two major rivers. There were no building materials except clay, virtually no woods (which means no firewood either, so no fired clay), no mountains, nothing. When the rivers flood the plain, it might as well be a worldwide catastrophe, because the Sumerians had nowhere to run. It is easy to see how they could come up with an idea that they were being obliterated by divine wrath.

The Sumerians quietly gave way to Babylonians, who recorded most of their original myths. Babylonians got taken over more often than Poland. Eventually, their beliefs filtered down to the Egyptians (with a flooding river of their own), to the Jews, and to the Christians, until they emerged in the form we can read in the Bible today.
>|<*:=

My Beliefs (5.00 / 4) (#517)
by bugmaster on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:41:32 PM EST

The article asks a personal question, so I might as well answer.

I am what they call a "Weak Atheist": I do not claim 100% absolute knowledge that there is no God (Goddess, gods, spirits, demons, whatever), but I do think that the chances of gods existing are too small to affect anything.

At the point where I am now, this lack of beliefs comes about through lack of evidence. Gods are usually described as all-powerful (or "merely" powerful enough to juggle suns), all-knowing (ditto), etc. Something like this would need to have a veritable mountain of supporting evidence in order to be considered credible. It similar to the situation where a criminal would claim at his trial that the aliens committed all the crimes and blamed him: this situation is possible, but so unlikely that no one would believe him. Especially when more mundane explanations are readily available.

Also, as Dlugar mentioned, god has a poor track record. Many things attributed to divine intervention in the past -- thunder, floods, sunlight, emergence of humans, schizophrenia, blackouts, etc. -- have been later shown to arise by purely natural causes. Thus, chances are that many unexplained phenomena which are attributed to gods today will be similarly explained in the future.

Note that I do not believe in Science as a religion -- although many people do (or perhaps they merely believe in Technology). As Dlugar has very correctly pointed out (made my day, too), at the core of science is doubt. Science and faith are direct opposites. And claiming that Weak Atheism is a religion would be a bit silly -- it's called A-theism for a reason.

Many theists (predominantly Christian ones... sorry, couldn't resist) have called me closed-minded in the past. If I only open my mind to Jesus (or Yahveh or Chthulhu or whoever), they say, he will show me The Light. However, the problem here is that I cannot force myself to believe something without any evidence and remain intellectually honest. Sure, I can close my eyes and pretend that I have a trillion dollars in my bank account -- but, deep down, I know that Internet vendors would disagree with me on that. Even if I were able to believe random things by sheer force of will, I would be lying to myself, and I don't want to do that.

Which does not by any means imply that I will not believe in gods under any circumstances. All a prospective god would have to do is demonstrate "proof" of his (hers, its, theirs) existence would be to create some repeatable, objective effect which clearly violates the natural laws as we know them today. When judging the causes for this effect, I would consider hallucinations, hoax (or hypnosis or some other man-made phenomenon), insanity, hereto unknown natural processes, powerful aliens, mischievous spirits, gods, and, finally a God -- in that order. Each entity in this ordering is progressively more powerful than the preceding entity. If the evidence is sufficient, I would have no choice but to believe in the entity whose existence can explain all that evidence.

So, essentially, all I need to believe in a god is for the god to manifest a miracle -- or a "personal experience" of the sort that Dlugar mentions. Until that happens, I will be forced to remain an atheist.

In any case, thanks to Dlugar for a lucid and compelling article on religion; I haven't read anything this well-written in a while.
>|<*:=

Organized Religion (5.00 / 3) (#518)
by bugmaster on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:45:20 PM EST

In addition to my previously posted uber-verbose comment, I should mention that Dlugar hit the nail on right on the head when he pointed out the difference between faith and organized religion.

While the principles set down by some religions (Christianity being one example) are quite admirable, the behavior of organized religions who claim to uphold the faith is often nothing short of despicable. Besides, I'd like to think that if God did finally reveal itself to me, I wouldn't need a support group to pat me on the back and collect membership fees -- I would be happy enough talking to my personal Deity.
>|<*:=

Slow news day? (4.33 / 3) (#524)
by Fantastic Lad on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 11:55:13 PM EST

Roll up your sleaves and roll out the thousand and one opinions.

And try not to shove, please. Everybody will get their turn at not being listened to.

Wanna not listen to mine? (I'm repeating myself at this point anyway;)

The biblical god and the books surrounding him are based on warped truths and outright fictions perpetrated by the government and the various control groups which held power when the bible was being written and the cult still spreading. People choose to believe in this warped reality because the various Christ cults around the world are deliberate social control mechanisms and as such are promoted and allowed to flourish. People are trained from birth to be susceptable to this sort of control.

The fact that energy 'magic' exists, as does non-corporeal life (spirits), is aptly explained away as either demonic, or biblical in aspect, both of which are seen by true-believers as providing 'proof' of the cult's validity. As does the fact that a large number of semi-corporeal life forms are actively able to mislead humanity into believing stupid cult dogma through the application of smoke and magic shows, burning bushes and hospital window madonnas and similar nonsense, --ploys which, (in my opinion), reside on about the same level as selling beads to indians in exchange for New York. Three cheers for the greatness of the human intellect.

It's a near perfect set-up. So-called 'magic' is championed by cult idiots, which in turn (rightfully), offends the hell out of the science and technology crowd, who in turn respond by denying all of it. (Growing up savvy in a small town peopled by the Christian thought-police? Who the hell wouldn't want to shun the whole parade when it's as creepy and powerful as one of those alien pod movies?)

Anyway, the net result is that the two major groupings in the world have been tricked into a nearly perfect state of ignorance for different reasons. Those who manage to escape into the third alternative, (the New Age movement), are also effectively dealt with. (Ever wonder why the CIA and various alphabet soup agencies always seem to have their people involved in messing with New Age groups? They don't waste all that time and resource for no reason! Notice how the successful ones are also among the most corrupt and dangerous; Scientology, Fulan Dafa and the Moonies, to name three of them. This is certainly by design!)

Very, very few people manage to escape this three-layered lobster trap, (Christian bullshit, Science bullshit, and New Age bullshit). The operation is very efficient; except for those few naughty sheep which actually manage to escape, the whole thing is nearly perfect.

And perfect for what, you might ask?

Look around. We're about half way through the opening game. Stay tuned. It's due to get a lot messier and a helluva lot weirder.

-FL

Perhaps a more interesting question ... (5.00 / 5) (#531)
by dhilvert on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 12:19:59 AM EST

What does 'believe in God' mean, if anything?

What would Jack Chick say? (4.85 / 7) (#535)
by eSolutions on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 12:25:20 AM EST

If Chick hadn't died in that mysterious go-go club fire so many years ago, he would be aghast at this discussion. Shame on you all! Perhaps the following morality play will set things straight.

Scene One: A father is tucking his son into bed.

Father: Greenerd, would you like me to read you a Bible story?

Greenerd: No thank you, Papa. For I am tired and sleepy.

Father: All right, child. Sleep well, in Christ!

After his father leaves, Greenerd flips on a flashlight and gazes lovingly at a framed 8-by-10 photograph of Rustov Fostirov kept stashed under his pillow.

Greenerd: Stupid Dad with his stupid God! Rustov's the only Christ I need. He knows that the real path to eternal life is in electronically-preserved ruminations on techno-politics. Asperger Uber Alles!

Scene Two: Greenerd is walking dejectedly down the street.

Greenerd: Boy, I feel lonely -- almost as if I miss the healing touch and lingering caress of Our Lord and Saviour.

A "cabal" of libertarian programmers are walking down the sidewalk towards Greenerd.

Cabalist: Hey, kid! Wanna join our gang? We walk the Earth without fear, since the power of Rational Thought makes us invincible!

Greenerd: Sure thing! Boy, it'll be neat to apply the unshakable e-power of the computer world to reality.

Cabalist: We're going to go beat up those Christian football players. They may be burly, but we shall use our laser-like wits to guide our bony limbs. A PHP simulation said we would win!

Scene Three: Greenerd, the Cabal, Rustov Fostirov, and SATAN the DECEIVER are all in HELL.

Rostov (to Satan): Ah, ha ha ha! We sure showed them, didn't we old friend?

Satan: That's right, buddy! Eeeee Eee Hee Hee!

Greenerd: Nooooo! It's too late for me! IT BURNS!

THE END

Yours in the Shadow of the Lamb,
eSolutions

because (5.00 / 2) (#537)
by anonymous pancake on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 12:46:36 AM EST

I don't want to go to hell.


---
. <---- This is not a period, it is actually a very small drawing of the prophet mohhamed.
Because (5.00 / 2) (#544)
by Pig Hogger on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 01:29:20 AM EST

Religious "explanations" do not fit observable data, nor are simpler than the laws governing the Universe.
--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot

Agnostic vs Atheist (4.50 / 2) (#547)
by mpComplete on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 01:35:27 AM EST

Can someone explain to me the need for the distinction between agnostic and atheist?  Agnostics believe it's impossible to know whether a god exists or not.  Atheists believe that god does not exist.

Okay.  But the reason you cannot know whether god exists or not, is that you cannot prove the absense of something.  However, isn't the lack of evidence enough to disbelieve in something.  I can't prove there is no Loch Ness Monster - even if I drain all of Loch Ness, who's to say he didn't sneak off somewhere else, or that he can't go on land, or even that he doesn't have some sort of special power like invisibility.  Does that mean that I shouldn't say "I believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist", but rather, "I'm not sure, it's impossible to know."

The lack of evidence for something should be enough to permit its disbelief.  If you say you cannot know because there is no evidence, then why believe?  (If it's because you "feel" it, that's not an answer - "feeling" it is your evidence).

Either all agnostics are atheists because they cannot believe in something without proof, or all atheists are agnostic because you cannot believe in the lack of anything (because you can't disprove it).

Or am I missing something here?

If there is a god then... (4.83 / 6) (#551)
by gt3 on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:10:34 AM EST

1) Why did he kill the dinosaurs off.
2) How do you explain evolution. We evolved from monkeys. If we evolved from monkeys then does that mean that monkeys and other animals that aren't intelligent enough to follow the rules of the bible, go to hell too?
3) Why are we allowed to think for ourselves and in doing so clearly will realize that unless we have proof we shouldn't believe. He can't hold that against us, if he "made" us that way.
4) Why doesn't he come around and let us see him, we'll all get him on video. Everyone will believe then. It's been aloooong time since he paid a visit to anyone. Of course people in 'biblical' times would believe it if they witnessed everything with their own eyes and ears.
5) Everyone's killing themselves over religion and even babies that aren't capable of thinking for themselves are getting killed. If god loved us all then why won't he address this fundamental issue and be merciful?
I could go on, but I'm sure someone will say 'cuz its a test of faith.'

better question: does 'god' believe in man? (3.66 / 3) (#557)
by peckerhead on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:24:40 AM EST

don't trust them, they don't trust you.

Protection (3.33 / 3) (#560)
by noise on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:41:07 AM EST

What do I believe? I believe we need an asteroid defense system. Why? It's our best bet currently. Why go to Mars when we could get smacked by some wayward space rock in the meantime. To the religious who do not fear this I say you should just leave your doors unlocked and windows open. After all it's such a hassle to keep locking and unlocking... Every atheist should be for such a system.

What is the difference between a duck? (4.33 / 3) (#571)
by adiffer on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 03:23:50 AM EST

I've considered the question of whether or not a God exists.  That question invariably translates to something as nonsensical as 'What is the difference between a duck?'  I know it doesn't do that for everyone and I accept it.  For me, it does though.

I am inclined to think theists are attributing powerfully emotional experiences to things they might otherwise be able to explain if they tried or waited patiently of help from others.  Even if no explanation arises, I think they are in too much of a rush to attribute their personal religious experiences to something.  I've learned to admit there are things I don't know and might never figure out, but I feel no need to accept a nonsensical meme into the foundation upon which I think, act, and interpret.

I have also learned that people can accept nonsensical ideas into their lives and base other important interpretations upon them.  Internal consistency isn't required to live one's life and often isn't desired.
--BE The Alien!

The existence of God is immaterial (4.50 / 2) (#579)
by d s oliver h on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 05:31:10 AM EST

Since it doesn't seem to influence the world. And if it could condone the banishment of any soul to hell, i.e. eternal torment, then it is obviously a sick, demented creature.

I don't let any humans tell me how to live, since I don't think they as individuals have any right to try to control me. The same goes for any putative supreme being, whether it created the universe or not. I question its actions, which seem to be irrational. If God manifested itself to me I would not accept that it was inherently superior to me or had any right whatsoever to claim to be superior, or to judge me, or even to know better than me.

That said, I do not believe in God. I agree with earlier comments regarding the evolutionary, sociological and psychological pressures which make the brain prone to such beliefs, which I would interpret as being misguided beliefs.

I implore those who believe in God to use their brain for more productive things, or at least to investigate why they believe, and whether they are right to subjugate themselves! Subscribing to a religion is to devalue your indivuality. I contend that belief in God is a mechanism which people use to shield themselves from reality! Belief in God is neurotic!

Nevertheless I like to sometimes indulge in believing in some underlying metaphysical nature to the universe. But I do this for entertainment purposes only. I base my behaviour on its more readily apparent consequences.

the god part of the brain (4.00 / 3) (#586)
by Space on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 06:17:26 AM EST

Matthew Alper wrote a particularly contrevercial book titled "the God part of the brain", which addresses this very question. A group of Canadian neurologists claim to have found a lobe in the brain responsible for religious experiences. People who had the lobe stimulated using electrodes in a darkened room claimed they had epiphanys. The book also looked at case studies of religious fanatics with diagnosed neurological pathology who experience epiphanys. This discovery however is far from solving the debate between religion and science because while evolutionary biologists claim its meerly a mutation that proved beneficial in human social interaction, christian scientists assert that its only logical that the creator would design human beings so they could never forget religion.
<recycle your pets>
Life is God [nt] (3.50 / 2) (#589)
by monkeymind on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 06:20:39 AM EST


I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.

Say rather (none / 0) (#594)
by dzimmerm on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 06:45:06 AM EST

You are in denial if you say you have never wanted to BE god.

I want to be a god, who wouldn't?

Don't you?

dzimmerm

As Nietzsche pointed out... (4.83 / 6) (#602)
by Homburg on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 07:45:46 AM EST

Science is not an alternative to religion, it is simply the last, desparate gasp of monotheism, setting up Truth as an alternative to God.

What I'm getting at is that you only consider scientific arguments against theism, arguments attacking religion in the name of truth. The important arguments against religion, on the other hand, seem to me to be political and ethical. The problem is not whether or not there is a god, but the very idea that we ought to feel ourselves responsible to some kind of transcendence. The really repugnant feature of theism, the belittling  of material human existence, cannot be combatted by opposing another sort of transcendence, in this case, the transcendence of the truth. Rather, we need to reconfigure our whole way of thinking (and acting) so that the very idea of a transcendent God is revealed as the grotesque absurdity it always was.

The existence of God is not a purely epistemological matter, because the idea of a transcendent deity is inherently ethically loaded (it doesn't make sense to believe in God without also thinking ourselves inferior, for example). Therefore the question we should be asking ourselves is not, 'Does god exist?' but rather, 'What sort of person do I want to be?' Once we've answered the second question, the first becomes irrelevant

Religion (4.50 / 2) (#605)
by Judas Light on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 08:08:44 AM EST

I have to say that I have been thinking about the existence, or lack thereof, of Gods, gods, Goddesses, goddesses, deities, demons, angles, spirits, and all of that, for a very long time. Ever since my childhood.

What are my conclusions? It seems that the more I think about those entities, the more I think they are un-real, insubstancial, but the harder I find it to convince myself that I could convince others of that. I have never believed in any of them, much. I had an escapist part of my life, where I really wanted to believe in spirits, and demons, but I "grew" out of it, and realized that it all stemmed from a lack of acceptance of the Second Law, and its ramifications. ;-)

I used to think that religious people were stupid and misguided, that I knew better than them. I don't think that anymore. I don't think they're stupid, I don't know if it's proper to call them misguided, and they're individuals - some of them I know better than, some of them know better than me, some of them are not easily compared to me. I do find quite a few sects of the mainstream religions a bit off-key, as I do most "New Age" religions. Yae, I have found that those who are prone to mysticism in most "serious" religions, much like the "New Agists," fit the "misguided fools" ruberik most of all, if at all.

As a disclaimer, the "mainstream" religion of my locale has always been Judaism, rather than Christianity, or Islam, and those are very theologically distinct religions. Well, Judaism and Islam have more in common, a subject which would require a more serious discussion.

But I'm a veteran of many online debates with Christians, have read a bit about Islam, heard vaguely of other religions, read more seriously about some Neo-Pagan sects, and those are my conclusions, coming from the broad view I have at the beginning of my third decade.

That is all.

--
The mind isn't a vessel to be filled but a torch to be ignited.
Some Dude

If Only I Could Have Caught This In Edit... (3.60 / 5) (#607)
by thelizman on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 08:19:59 AM EST

...you yourself are the victim of a meme. You keep talking "religeon, religeon"...but then you discuss the topic of spirituality. I do not have a religeon. I have a faith. Your incomprehension of the difference of the two makes you ill-qualified to make any kind of credible thesis on the topic. Nevertheless, a very nice essay, warts and all.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Indoctrination (5.00 / 2) (#610)
by n8f8 on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 08:44:43 AM EST

I think the single strongest reason for so many people believing in religion is due to indoctrination. Chances are that if you are brought up in a religion you will follow religion when you reach adulthood.

But I think your real question is "why are their so many religions"" or "why is there such a widespread need for religion?"

My best shot to answer that would be to look at the evidence:

Man needs to hunt and gather for his existence therefore man worships fertility and portions of the environment.

Man becomes technologically evolved enough to control his environment and live in large groups therefore god becomes more abstract and defines the rules needed for large groups to coexist peacefully.

But maybe there is a more fundamental "why religion". I think the answer may be that most men are incapable of behaving in a manner sufficiently cooperative with other men unless there is some external motivator to force proper behavior. Do the right thing or you go to hell or fail to reach enlightenment or become reincarnated as a dung beetle.

Want proof? Look at history and view the results when physical security fails and there isn't a strong religious component of the society.

Another interresting thing to ponder is how so many modern religions appear to be cooperating. Even when the religions are at odds in their teachings.


Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

Why? Maybe the preponderence of evidence (3.50 / 2) (#613)
by MickLinux on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 08:54:34 AM EST

If you want to know why, try looking here or here.

In short, a lot of people who really believe in God and follow him do so because of the Holy Spirit. One might have a harder time asking "why do people believe in the Government?".

People believe in God because they experience the fact that God loves them, and forgives them from their sin, and frees them from particular form of slavery, and that's enough reason.

why people believe in god (3.87 / 8) (#624)
by dh003i on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 10:20:29 AM EST

(1) People are fucking stupid. Think about how stupid the average man or woman is. Now think that half of them are dumber. We live in a modern society -- supposedly an "intelligent" one. We can dispatch with silly beliefs like religion, which -- among grown individuals -- is no better than the belief in fairy-tales or sorcery.

(2) People are fucking cowards. The concept of death scares people. Hell, it scares society. People can face death easier if they hold on to the idiotic belief that there is some "afterlife". This is perpetuated by the government. Naturally the government wants people to believe in some sort of afterlife, where all of their wrongs are punished and their rights rewarded; it helps to keep people civilized during the end of their lives.

(3) Parental brainwashing. From the minute kids can understand language, parents are brainwashing them into believing in god. Really, they have no choice. When they're 3, they get sent to Sunday School, where some zombie Sunday teacher drones into their head, "God loves you, God loves your family, all is well".

(4) The need to feel like a part of something. Rejects and losers from every walk of life flock to religion, and then spread propaganda about how "religion saved their lives". What really saved their lives was their own actions, of course.

An interesting side-note is that religious people -- even those who volunteer copious amounts of their time to charity, give away as much of their money as they can to help others, etc etc -- are not really good people. They are doing whatever they do because they expect to be rewarded in the afterlife; because they want to go to heaven, and don't want to go to hell (in the case of XXX-tians). If the Bible said "rape, murder, torture, steal, and fuck around, or else go to hell", there would be a lot more XXX-tians raping, murdering, torturing, stealing, etc.

P.S.: Science is not a religion. It is a discipline for finding the truth. A method. All religions rely on the unquestioning belief in something that cannot be tested. In science, many things may be believed to be the truth, but they are usually testable in concrete manner. Of course, religious nut-cases will always just claim, "it's all an illusion created by the devil to fool you".

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

Thinking things together. (3.50 / 2) (#625)
by Agrippa on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 10:26:31 AM EST

Human beings love to find the unity in complexity. We desperatly want to think things together, make sense of a complex world. Take for example the classical understanding of the word 'Logos' from which we get the word logic. 'Logos' is a rational account, but more than that, it is a bring together of things into a rational account, a collection of distinct elements into a cohesive whole.

However, at some point this system of collection breaks down. Hegel tried to unify everything through Spirit, Descartes in the benevolence of God as the means for certainty in the world of extension, Plato in the world of the forms. But none of these systems completely match our expereince of the world. This is where the trouble arises. We like complete systems, we will even fill in the gaps of incomplete systems to make them complete. God is the ultimate fudge factor. When the world ceases to make sense, when your finite mind runs into the infinitude of the universe, it just makes things much easier to postulate God. It means that we are not flotsam on the jetstream of a chaotic ultimately incomprehensible universe. And that makes people feel good.

We must remember that William of Occam, and his famous razor, are actually an attempt to prove the existance of God, references to the movie "Contact" aside.

Cheers,

Agrippa
We are all worms, but I do beleive I am a glow worm.

God, god, or G_d? (4.00 / 2) (#636)
by k31 on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 11:26:08 AM EST

I don't believe in God as an independant entity; but, rather, that all change (common delta, d operator) all ultimately relates to the gravity constant (G). This is probally the origin of "The only constant is change", which should probally be translated as "All change, _d originates with the gravity constant, G".

Belief is probally meant to be a temporary (but long-term) limit used to focus energy; e.g. you believe that you job is necessary so you go to it every day; you believe that you're in love so you act supportive to you mate; you believe that you have something worth saying so you express yourself.

That is probally the useful omni-useful (STA) version of belief. The useless quasi-self-sacrifical version that has become religion tends to empower leaders at the expense of the followers.

"god" is to me, completeness, which could be found (at least partially) in a divine marriage or perhaps through some sort of dual-personality (internal twinning, like the guy in Fight Club - but obviously that doesn't work, like the guy in Fight Club). So its more like an goal which may be only possible in an ideal world or with an ideal mate and a mature core self.

"God" to me is a myth; not that I don't belive that some sort of entity created the world but I more think I'm aking to a character in the Matrix or something; and the Architect probally isn't the origional creator of either humans nor any non-human entities. Sort of like how you can't really say there is one creator for the modern PC, or for Linux (I know Linus started it, but without GNU and other people it wouldn't be completely usable for the operator).

In the same way that Linus might as well be a myth if my problem has nothing to do with the Linux kernel, for most situations I doubt God matters. After all, I wouldn't want either God nor Linus to come mop up my floor, although if I was lacking in a mop then anyone's help would be appreciated... esp. my own if I could go make, borrow, or buy one.

So... I guess it could be possible that God still exists but I don't think it matters much; I'll meet them/hir if I start participating in kernel development -- err, I mean, the untelevised revolution.


Your dollar is you only Word, the wrath of it your only fear. He who has an EAR to hear....

There are two types of people (2.60 / 5) (#643)
by dh003i on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 12:43:58 PM EST

Those who don't believe in this fairy-tale called "religion"...

...and morons

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

Utterly dissapointing comments.... (5.00 / 3) (#656)
by nads on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:04:40 PM EST

... probably because the audience is so slanted, but also because most of the arguments on all sides are sophmoric.

Atheism as Religion
A few points. If you accept God is an empirical entity and that Science is true, then Atheism is not a religion. However, most conceptions of God are super-natural, thus he is not in the physical universe, and is technically outside the domain of science. So in that case Atheism is a religion because they are employing science to entities outside its domain -- however, you could argue that this class of entities is foolish and thus bring it back in the domain of science. The stupid unicorn or magic faries are not an example of this. Unicorns would be empirical arguments, so using them as an example of reductio ad absurdum is IDIOTIC. So please STOP!.

Even more foolish than the unicorns are the peopel who say 'reason' leads me to atheism. No it doesn't -- your stupidity does. Reason leads you where you want it to -- especially if you are epistemoligically a foundationalist, but even if you are a coherentist. Reinbach and Wittgenstein both employed reason, and pretty well to get to the most different conclusions. Reinbach a champion of science, Wittgenstein suggesting its a ll just a language-game.

Why atheism as a religion makes sense as a metaphor though is because thats how humans function when they accept beliefs (especially foundational ones) unconditionally, even scientific ones. (c.f. quantum mech revolution -- all the mechanists died, they didn't change their mind). However, what convinced me the most was when I was taking a philosophy of religion class. Often, I had discussions with the atheists in teh class on what would be acceptable grounds to believe in God. The discussion would begin with the usual given grounds (which I myself dont think are sufficient). They would suggest that those aren't sufficient. After a few minutes, I would ask, what if science proved god existed (notice this is a hypothetical), almost every atheist I spoke to said they still would not believe, because God requires extraordinary proof. I'd repreat the question a couple of times, and on the last time, around 3/4 would then concede, in the hypothetical, they'd believe in God. But that isn't their gut reaction, and most of them, hesistantly agreed in this ridiculous conditional, that they'd believe. This is how religious faith works.

God as Certainity
?

Theism (4.33 / 3) (#665)
by mcgrew on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 02:40:00 PM EST

I believe in God mainly because He has manifested Himself to me. I have witnessed miracles. I know God. Perhaps I am insane.

However, there are questions that, for now, only religion can answer.

What is consciousness? What is sentience? Why is it there? How can a being that can even ask these questions exist? Does it really seem likely to anyone that the pyramids, skyscrapers, automobiles, laptop computers, are only accidents of entropy?

The aformentioned laptop, which was fashioned by humans, is incredibly complex, with millions of microscopic transistors (each an accident of entropy, in the athiest's view). But compared to the humans who designed and built them, they are laughingly simple. Yet they are fashioned by a consciousness, and we are not?

The very idea is so mind boggling as to be laughable.

Speaking of which- laughter itself is proof of God. What evolutionary attribute could it have? How does laughter in amy way have any survival value?

Laughter is the only thing that really separates us from the other animals.

Why do we laugh?

Sleep is another. It seems counter-survival to me, despite theories I have heard- it keeps you quiet and still at night- yet it doesn't keep you from stinking, or snoring. Why did evolution not get rid of snoring before our species existed? And we are not the only species that snores- I have heard housecats snore. I have seen dogs dream, twitching their feet as if running, eyes moving.

What evolutionary purpose could dreaming possibly have?

All the evidence points to God. Little if any points away.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie

Reasonable Doubt (5.00 / 3) (#677)
by Rainy on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 03:20:23 PM EST

Buddhism cuts closer to the bone than the three big religions because it gets to the heart of the issue of individuality, free will, personality. What is free will? Someone said that when millions of years ago two first atoms hit each other, our complete lives were predestined. We act for two reasons: in response to environment and because of our nature, that is programming in form of dna and education. I just scratched my brow. I had no free will to choose to scratch it or not because it was a reflex, programmed in me brain. If I chose not to out of stubborness, that would still not be free will because stubborness was also encoded in me somehow, as well as lack of imagination to see that refusing to scratch the brow proves zilch. Or, like that recent cartoon about lucid dreams said, quantum uncertainty is no escape from pre-determination: instead of being determined by two atoms 15 billion years ago, we are determined by random quant movement a nano-second ago! Hardly a consolation.

At the same time we're sitting here and working at our jobs and having our pleasures. We believe in ourselves, otherwise we'd just float like flotsam. Science explains the world and so makes us feel secure and content, relatively, but it does not go to the heart of the problem.

To a theist, I imagine, (and I don't mean dull theists who argue about 5000yrs vs millions of evolution), mechanics of how things happen are not the issue. That is, when an atheist talks about bible saying 4 corners of the earth, measurements of the noah bark, and so forth, he's shocked: that's not important! It's things like conscience, responsibility, free will, that are at stake.

I think both theist and atheist have defendable and even agreeable with each other positions, in a way. An intelligent theist will say that there's inescapable duality of either saying this mystery in us is spiritual or mechanical. He simply says, why would I pick the latter? It's sort of like defining yourself as a typewriter when you dont' know for sure, if you're a typewriter or a god. Atheist sees his virtue in not being presumptious. Or at least in being as unspecific about his hope of being spiritual rather than mechanical, to the extent he does not say 'spiritual' but leaves a question mark that he hopes does not stand for mechanical. In fact, at this height above sea level our 'ordinary' words dont' have much weight.

Finally a word about stubborn "qubits in ark" people. Who cares? If bible is true at all, it's true in parts that are about our minds, not bodies or ships.
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day

Why? (3.00 / 2) (#696)
by chunkwhite84 on Sat Jun 21, 2003 at 05:48:37 PM EST

especially one who fails to manifest himself to us?

This is not necessarily a true statement. Simply because you have not seen God as a tangible physical being does not disprove his existance, nor does it fail to constitute God's manifestation to us. I for one, have seen and experienced more than enough proof to strongly solidify my belief in God. And no, I'm not an avid church goer and I wasn't raised in a strict catholic family.

From what I have seen... (4.00 / 2) (#741)
by the77x42 on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 03:52:44 AM EST

... most people believe in God because their parents do. Let people think what they want, even if it is irrationally influenced (have your parents ever been right? mine haven't).


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

God personifies randomness (4.00 / 3) (#744)
by annenk38 on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 04:46:58 AM EST

A belief in God is probably a natural phenomenon in the development of the human psyche. People have a natural tendency to look for patterns in random sequences of events: "a winning streak" to a gambler, "providence" to a fortune seeker, "God's blessing" to a religious person. Curiously, the phrase "God only knows" is frequently used to rationalize precisely random events, even by people who do not believe in any gods. Randomness itself, however is not something that lends itself to proof -- it is related to determinism in theory of computation. Since our lifetimes are finite, it is not possible for us to measure precisely which events are random and which are not. In that sense atheists and theists are on equal footing.

And if my left hand causes me to stumble as well -- what do I cut it off with? -- Harry, Prince of Wales (The Blackadder)
What is this God thing you are talking about? (4.83 / 6) (#752)
by ShrimpX on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 08:27:01 AM EST

This conversation would be much better if we talked about extrauniversal creatures, or atomic radiation, or random forces, or something more specific than this God thing.

Let's take a particular religion X... The trouble with the God of X and X itself is that it must be propagated via language. And language sucks. Language is incapable of reproducing an event or a feeling with satisfying accuracy. Therefore, the transmission of an event through language from a person to another is extremely lossy, and the receiver will NOT receive an absolute replica of what the sender has. Personality and beliefs play a crucial role here; every communication is tainted and impartial.

Thus, the Christian God of 2000 years ago is NOT the Christian God of today. Moreover, the Christian God of Joe Christian is NOT the Christian God of Jack Christian. I keep hearing that Islam, Christianity and Judaism praise the same god, which is absolutely ludicrous. All of these gods might have things in common, but they are different beasts.

Furthermore, the 'existence' of a thing is wholly dependent on the psychologic makeup of the person interpreting that 'existence.' Sure I am an individual in society--in the sense that i am composed of stuff that is verifiable by accepted methods, have an ID, a residence, a social security number, a name--but every other individual who knows me knows a separate instance of me. Saying that my presence in the world is unique is saying that all individuals are identical, which makes no sense. Saying that God himself is unique is even more messed up, as God even lacks the physical and societal presence--he doesn't exist AT ALL at that level.

So anyway, talking about dying and then meeting this 'guy' who billions of years ago created the universe is nonsensical, since you don't even believe in this 'guy.' You believe in some other guy, who you created when the idea of 'God' was first mentioned to you. This guy that you have in your mind also created the Universe, but he is certainly not the guy that Jesus was talking about. It's a lot like believing in the Hulk. If the author of the Hulk was a nut who claimed that the Hulk was reality, the two concepts would be indistinguishable.

We are slowly creating a framework for communication and understanding of our surroundings... God, in his various incarnations today, has been severely altered to conform to this ever-growing framework. If you hear that some guy had Jesus knock on his door, come in and eat with him, telling him of the Heavens and whatnot, we would quickly dismiss him as wrong, and find several explanations--in our framework--which easily tell us what "really" happened. Of course, 2000 year ago this would not have been the case. And this is because the general God(*) that was created to fit the human framework back then is not the general God that we created to fit our framework now.

So anyway, I think that God makes as much sense as smoking cigarettes. It was passed on to you, you became dependent on it, you like it and craft your life around it. After some time, giving it up becomes very hard as it has already redefined who you are, redefinition in which "giving it up" is not an option.

So why do people smoke?

(*) by "general god" i mean the sum of behaviors which are more or less common to most instances of god of each individual.

Christian-centric model of theology (5.00 / 5) (#764)
by mymantra on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 01:39:13 PM EST

I'm always disappointed when theological questions are posed in way that only makes sense from an orthodox Christian or Judeo-Islamo-Christian context. The concept of "God" as described is such. Coming from a professed Christian I probably shouldn't be surprised that the question should be so profoundly parochial and anti-cosmopolital as this tends to be the very nature of religion (the specific means, creeds and habits of a practice of a theological belief).

It would seem that the writer's experience with other religions amounts to little more that learning their names. What exactly does the belief in a single living God have to do with Buddhism? Pretty much nothing. Are their enormous similarities between Christian values and Buddhist values? Absolutely - probably about the closest in some keys ways. So what really is the point of asking about the universality of a belief in a single living God when in fact, it is clearly not universal even in other religions? And where do we start with Hinduism? Though there is a semblance of unity between the trinity of Rama, Krishna and Shiva, the hundreds of avatars makes comparisons seems mismatched and inappropriate.

Though raised Catholic, the closest I can get to a Christian creed that I could ever believe would be Christian Gnosticism, though the Hermetic/Isisene precursors have merit if you stick the philosophy and avoid the Banishing Daggers, Enochian Tablets and other DnD-ish oddments. Praise the True God - damn the Demiurge! Buddhism is well ahead of Gnosticism though in my book.

I do believe that there is a place for theology , et al. and that much of the belief in religion is directly and ultimately tied to one thing: physical limits of human cognition. Essentially we are stuck "in the box" in a vaguely Gödelian sense (this is what both Gnosticism and Buddhism say BTW, as well as certain popular film stories like The Matrix, Existenz, etc.). That which is (or appears to be) unprovable gets lumped into theology, religion and sprituality largely due to our imperative to categorize - when the only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

MM

Another consideration (4.00 / 2) (#772)
by mystic cowboy on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 02:43:49 PM EST

This is a wonderful discussion Dlugar. Thanks for taking the time. One could answer your questions from several perspectives. Or, even introduce new questions. Every culture we know of has had some sort of religious practices. Even remnants found in 100,000 year old burial sites indicate the probability that modern humans have always practiced some sort of religion. Why?

We can't answer that either way, at least not scientifically. The best we can do is say that the evidence is inconclusive. One observation I'd like to throw in is that if there is a god, this intelligence would have to be vast, beyond imagination and certainly not a human with super powers. The god that most people believe in seem so me to be no more than a comic book character. So considering the vastness of creation, god would have to be complex beyond imagining. No formal religious system could possibly encompass such an intelligence. Yet we keep trying. Why?

It could be that humans are genetically predisposed to want a god or gods. Maybe it's just hard wired into our DNA. It could be that so many people have an experience of the divine because it's there. I don't think that cultural indoctrination is sufficient to explain religion. If so, I would assume that some cultures, somewhere, would have arisen without it. None have. Even the oppressively anti-religious actions of the former Soviet Union and Communist China haven't suppressed religion. It would seem, then, that there is a compelling reason for religions to exist. The two I've mentioned seem to be the strongest. I'm sure there are other good ones.

One argument I don't often see is that god and religions have little to do with one another. Or, more precisely, that religions are simply local attempts to describe a god that is vast and complex beyond description. Of course, religions contradict one another. The human mind is too limited to encompass the infinite. That is one of the traits most commonly attributed to god. The simplest explanation is that religions are limited attempts to explain in current local metaphors that which is beyond explanation. Add to that the fact that politicians and beurocrats get involved and sculpt the institutions of religion to their own ends, causing an ever increasing separation between the original religious experience and the everyday face of a formalized faith.

The religion formatio process has been studied. My recollection of it is that it follows roughly this course: Someone has a profound religious experience that entails a compulsion to share the experience and the insights realized during the experience. That person shares, preaches, writes about the experience. Other's who have had similar but less profound experiences become followers of the new prophet/preacher. The message spreads beyond breadth of personal contact, modified by each speaker. An organization arises to perpetuate the message. The organization become institutionalized. The institution itself becomes more involved with perpetuating itself than in living the original message. This seems to be a universal pattern followed by all groups or causes from political parties to corporations. So religion becomes the victim of its own success becoming ever more removed from the original experience it its founder.

Of course, others within a church may have their own experiences and bring those experiences back into the church as reforms. Or they may find that their experience can no longer fit within the constraints of their creed and they splinter or protest, forming a new church.

None of this human process has much to do with whether or not there is a god. It does confuse the inquiry because too often the limited depictions of god get confused with the impossible to grasp vastness that our potential god encompasses. My bottom line here is that religions, as human institutions, are not and can never be universal representatives of god. Any argument about whether or not god exists that is based on the teachings of an faith focus too narrowly to be of any ultimate use. As Dlugar so rightly points out, those who have experienced will believe. Those who haven't and are given to questioning won't. Most will never question.
My credo (5.00 / 2) (#781)
by leviramsey on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 04:55:01 PM EST

Hurry, before it archives!
Why I Believe in God (4.33 / 3) (#786)
by SaintPort on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 06:41:43 PM EST

Since my early childhood, I carried a gnawing discomfort with the fleetingness of life.

I asked, "Where was I before I was born?"  I did not buy the answer, "With God's other Angels," because I could not remember such a thing, and felt like a new bewildered soul, not an ancient who finally got his chance to happen in the world.

I began to see myself as a single point on an infinite timeline.  I read Plato and identified with the idea of death as an endless sleep or non-existence.  I read Siddhartha and identified with the Buddhist flow of life, and in that saw a meaninglessness that did not satisfy my soul.

The views of faiths which portray God as simply a scorekeeper, handing-out tickets to Heaven or Hell, left me cold.

But when I discovered within the Christian Way, the ability to experience the Kingdom of God, right here and now;
to feel the infilling of the Holy Spirit,
to see and hear the Gospel explained to my soul,
to watch my life and the lives of others be redeemed from sinfulness and despair,
to participate in happenings infused with the power of God's Providence,
I was confronted with a God I could not dismiss.

For my belief I can thank my parents, the Church, my friends, authors and publishers,and many others.  But the real reason I believe in God, is because He is true.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

I think the real question... (3.00 / 2) (#794)
by tthomas48 on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 10:51:49 PM EST

especially with the rise of the popularity of the Republican party, is why do people believe in money? Which statistically is as likely as God to manifest itself in a meaningful way in their life.

I used to believe and I want to again (3.00 / 2) (#795)
by endersgame20052005 on Sun Jun 22, 2003 at 10:54:31 PM EST

From what I have read it seems to me, and I could be dead wrong that at some point most of us believed in something, whether it was Allah or Buddha or Jesus much like the same way we all used to believe in angles and fairies and at some point growing up that was not enough for us we wanted something more tangible something real that we could reach out and touch, maybe even a voice that would talk to us after all the years of prayers and chants we tried to communicate to a supreme being. I'll try to give my side and my experiences for others to dissect I grew up believing in a God as most children do a Christian one at that, it was the only God that I knew existed at the time, I never knew that there were other Gods or even other religions, but I "knew" that I was loved by God, I remember seeing Jesus of Nazareth as a child and I was in awe of a God that loved me unconditionally I was in awe of a God that died for my sins, I was in awe of a God that promised me a life eternal with those that I loved if I would obey him and follow his word then of course there was the fate of eternal damnation if I did not follow this path and there were no options to follow any other path As I got older this of course became harder and harder to do, like saying turn the other cheek, do good to those who do wrong to you, tough the do in the real world without looking like a total idiot and or getting the crap kicked out of you My faith started to fragment just then, they say knowledge is power and in some ways that is true, because when I started to read and ask questions and no one could give me an answer that hardly differed from "just have faith and everything would be okay " I found myself dissatisfied and empty, as if life is not empty already, to lose one's faith makes it even more so, then the final straw came for me when I lost someone close to me, and my faith or whatever was left of it came apart completely, how could God do this to me when I had so much faith in him , where was he when I needed him the most , why has he abandoned me at a time when I needed that magical answer to my prayers. If there is a god or some other being, then I think he is playing a cruel game and we are the mice in the maze only able to go in certain directions sometimes with his intervention and sometimes without his intervention, but forced to go in his direction because that is the only exit out of the maze to the reward that lies in wait for us. I think that religion was organized as a form of emotional slavery, meant to force the masses to believe that this is the only way to some kind of eternal happiness, religion was stronger in the past centauries because the majority could not read or write only scholars and monks could do this and they lauded their knowledge over the dirt caked masses, now religion has less of a hold only because there are no more peasants to frighten at least not in modern societies, have you noticed that religion is strongest in countries where mass poverty and literacy is common ?but for those of us that can access the same knowledge as the scholars once did , we can question and form our own opinions. Its undeniable though that religion has not done some good it brings people together, it has made lasting relationships between total strangers, some of it has embraced a certain degree of tolerance and openness, it helps people to cope with the stresses of daily life, love tragedy, finality, if there is a proof of a god perhaps it lies within us, and all the good that we do, both believers and non believers as well, maybe the whole purpose of our lives on this planet is to achieve a struggle of finding faith losing it and finding it all over again , a process that I am still in the midst of . Faith believes a thing will be, against all odds and maybe the reward of a god revealing himself is the thing that drives people to believe in the face of so many unanswered questions.

Creation supposes a creator (4.33 / 3) (#800)
by Fastball on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 01:19:26 AM EST

I believe in God as my creator, because every creation supposes a creator. That's a fundamental principle in the universe. I believe a very long time ago, someone or something with a plan or idea set the universe in motion. Big bang. Light on the seventh day. Whatever.

You can see it especially in the sciences (we miss you, Carl Sagan). The laws of physics. Absolutely amazing stuff, and everything in the universe abides by them. That there is this order to things in the universe makes me believe more that the universe isn't some freak accident.

So yeah, I believe somewhere out there, or behind the black curtain of space, my creator, God, exists. I don't know what lies beyond the universe. "Universes are surrounded by whatever universes are surrounded by," is a famous quote from someone I forget. I don't have all the answers. But I believe I have a creator.

Now...I question whether my creator, God, knows that I exist. I find it very reasonable that God touched off the universe way back in time with certain principles (e.g. laws of physics) to guide its evolution, without knowing how exactly it would all play out. Who's to say God the creator is omniscient? Perhaps because he knows the rules by which everything works within, he can make a good guess. But I just don't know. By human logic (petty or astounding to some), I would want to reach out and meet a place teeming with life that wonders endlessly about me. If he reads this, he should consider himself invited.

Creation is fucking beautiful. From big bang to collections of gases in space to stars and planets to cellular life to modern species of plants and animals. Consider your own guts. How your intestines process food for your body. The cardiovascular system that gives you a little extra oomph with a dose of adrenaline. How your opposible thumb allows you to build that treehouse or change the tires on your bike.

I see too much in the world around me to say God doesn't exist. I wonder about heaven and the afterlife though...
The more common people try to make common sense the less sense it makes.

Because children *need* parents. (4.50 / 4) (#805)
by senahj on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 02:32:34 AM EST

Human young are extremely altricial -- if they are not cared for by adults, they die.

So humans are adapted to a long childhood spent in a family or tribe, in which we are cared for by a beings that are older and more powerful than us, who love us and care for us and guide us, and who protect us from danger and misfortune.  Our emotions are evolved to fit this situation.

The child is father to the man -- most of us retain throughout our lives our need and desire for someone more powerful than us to care for us and guide us and to protect us.  When we are no longer children, and our parents die, or we surpass them in strength and wisdom -- then there is no longer someone in the world who fits this emotional need.

But the need remains.  We project that need on the universe, and call it God, and many of us convince ourselves that God exists, because that belief comforts us, fills the built-in emotional need.

Freud wrote about this, in The_Future_of_an_Illusion.
Ian Anderson says it well on the liner notes to "Aqualung":  And man created God in his own image.

God exists within each of us, because our emotional natures have a God-shaped hole into which a parent fit when we were small.
 

Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. (5.00 / 3) (#806)
by mattsinclair on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 03:13:56 AM EST

I saw that quote in Scientific American not long back thought it was one of the most profound things I had read for a while. It is true that knowledge is created through the application of the scientific process, but don't get the two confused. M@

Salmon of Doubt (3.50 / 2) (#810)
by boxed on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 04:40:23 AM EST

In the book Salmon of Doubt by Douglas Adams, there is a transcription of a speech Adams did on this subject. He likened the way we humans think the world is created for us with how a pool of water in a crevace would think that the crevace is perfectly formed to fit it. He has numerous other smart things to say on the subject of course, I highly recommend reading this book.

religion (4.00 / 2) (#812)
by Admiral Kirk on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 05:35:47 AM EST

"I believe that theists believe in God because they have experienced many evidences supporting that conclusion" I hate to burst any bubbles here, but this has been tested and analyzed. It seems that religion and superstition (which are in fact the same thing) result from activity in certain parts of our brains. We all have that part, and all have those feelings, but the level differs, and the way we interpret them. This brain-part is an evolutionary left-over form the parts of our brains that sparked creativity. These feelings can be artificially induced by creating a certain form of EM field (which by the way naturally occurs in a lot of 'holy' places, explaining the feeling that people experience there). It has been tested on a double-blind group of people, and every one of them said they felt 'a warm presence' there. Depending on their religion they thought of it as 'god' or just a weird feeling. The fact is that the EM field triggered their feeling, not their belief, and certainly not an imaginary god. Through time, people have believed in many things, ranging from ghosts and daemons to alternate realities, and gods. Yet there is not a shred of prove to support the theory that ghost or elves exist, just as there's equally little proof to the existance of a god. Science does not offer to answer all questions, and yes it deals with uncertain things, but that's part of life. Religion requires you to not ask these questions, hence never having the answers anyway.

A smart arsed comment. (3.50 / 2) (#813)
by Zer0 on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 06:08:45 AM EST

God exists in the minds of those who believe in him. The other places he exists is open for debate =)

Serious omits in article! But intention is good (3.50 / 2) (#820)
by rtsvet on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 08:19:13 AM EST

1. See ideas of psycology on "Why peaple believe". S. Freud has some good clues for explanations, K.G. Jung also. I don't mean only as good conforting mechanism or projections ot paretnst archetypes, conforting theory ... 2. Religions are one ot possible theories. They give many people to get explanations ot many things, without going in to too much detail. People like to feel they understand how and why something happens. (Angels make pee thats why it's rains) Sure when one learns that other more complicted explanations (theories) could give him more profit. Example: If you have a theory that lighnigs are on the sky because ot Indra chariot this brings you nothing. But if you work hard to get the theory (some) of electricity you can make PC or lamp or ... So, when one learns that one can _build_ theories to get better, one understands religions as some posible theories. (Some very suspicious ;-) So good scientist have at least two theories about any phenomenon. 3. What is God for whom? For some is Creator, for some important is Cause-Resultat relation. If you don't go to theology see point 1. (psychologycal need ) 4. More important: What you save? Christioans have one soul. Buddist other thing (things) Hindu don't have any (You are already God but you are ignorant of it. And more God is one and one in all as allperveding) Some have many Souls as in many East religions. Egiptians also have had MANY SOULS. What you do with this entity (funktional, psysical or ... )? Ok , ok some whant do "save" this thing that they call "soul" - thats Ok by me. Some want to free "themselvs" from rebyrth(?!) Other whant to realise they are God. Other do some alchemy with their souls ... A the end: People can believe, so they do. (See D. Adms If something can happen it happens ;-) joke) PLS. Anybody whrite more profound on psychological explanations on phenomenpon of faith, there is plenty in literature.

Science as a faith (3.66 / 3) (#825)
by Godless Wonder on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 09:10:55 AM EST

Some (a very few) of my personal thoughts...
(You can guess by my name which side of the fence I come down on.)

I've seen lots of people say things like "Science requires faith as much as religion does.   You don't personally do all those atom-smasher experiments do you?"

However,  I think this is a matter of degree.  Science requires far less faith, since to a large degree, Science "delivers the goods" as Carl Sagan put it in his book, "Demon-Haunted World".

Many of science's claims _can_ be tested by the individual, and _are_ tested, every second of every single day.  Consider radio waves.  Prior to the invention of radio, it would have seemed a miracle to transmit sound or pictures great distances through thin air.  It would have required an act of God, or an act of a demon   But turn on the radio in your car, or your TV, or your cell phone.  We take it for granted these days, and require no supernatural explanation whatsoever.

And there are so many other similar examples, you can probably come up with hundreds if you think about it for any length of time.

Science delivers the goods.  Hence it requires less faith than religion, which most typically does NOT deliver the goods, most notably, if you try to test it.

Why would God hide his existence from us?  If you believe he listens to and answers prayers, why shouldn't he simply show himself.  "Ok God, just show me a sign... levitate this penny from my hand  to a about an inch for about a second? Ok?  Go!"  Waits a few seconds....nothing happens.
Hmm.  pretty weak.  (You're laughing, I know.  :-)

"God works in mysterious ways." is the pat answer.
Pretty weak, in my opinion.

Now  A couple other points to ponder

To Pascal's wager:  Which God?
"Who made us?"  Who made God?

Enough with the labels (5.00 / 9) (#831)
by scart on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 10:17:52 AM EST

I don't believe in Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, six foot purple spiders, or god. The first three just makes me sane, but for the last one the world wants to label me as an atheist. If this wasn't so amusing, I would have felt quite offended.
God belief and morals a result of evolution (3.00 / 2) (#833)
by jglazer on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 10:46:53 AM EST

Could the belief in god be a result of evolution? Are people more likely to pass on their DNA if they believe in god? Assuming the brain evolved into conscious thought, what keeps an individual from not being completely selfish and not supporting their children. I would say that morals and the subservience to god who insists on moral behaviour provides a counter-balance to the impulsive behaviour of an intellegent brain. This counter-balance increases the chance of someone who believes in god protecting their offspring. In other words, god belief replaces the some of the instinctual mechanisms that evolved out of the human mind.

do believe (3.50 / 2) (#853)
by zoderono on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 03:22:39 PM EST

your article is pretty good and deals with a lot of fundamental questions. just consider this as a try on my part to answer a few. why do we believe? i'm dreadfully sorry but our belief as you suppose is not based on any particular experiences or second-hand accounts. it is based neither on a desire for heaven nor a need to explain scientific questions. we believe because we see there is a purpose in our existance. we could not have so much of purpose if we were not created by some infinitely superior being. if we started from the big bang then the sum of all energy from which we fragmented is god. and when it is all over we will unite to become that primordial fire ball. we do not disagree in any way with science. it is just this. he is there and we are his creations. he is present as satya, as brahm in us. if he were not, none of our social organization, none of our perfect intellect would arise. we would just be matter, dust to return to dust. but that innate energy in us, that which which is forever awake and questioning, it is the scientist, the thinker, the philosopher in us that make god an undeniable entity. why doesn't he work miracles? why doesn't he give us a sign? isn't it a miracle that what broke free from that primordial mother cell exists in a state of such perfect order, obeying such definite laws. isn't it magic that we who are blessed with intellect follow such rigid moral codes. why does murder and theft shock us? it is the god in us, the brahm in us. why doesn't he appear to us? let me tell you. it's because it is so much more fun to watch your little creations work on their own. have you ever played with dolls when you were a kid. it was fun. but it would have been even better fun if we could create an atmosphere and see how they behaved in it. so many people go on long safaris and watch animals. why? we like to see what they do. we throw a coloured ball to a kitten and enjoy seeing how it reacts. it's the same with god. he likes to watch us stumble and watch us laugh, see us make theories about his beautiful toy, he even likes us to question him. he likes us to be free. his presence would make us forever on the watch, would make us too careful, too boring. when things go really awry he comes as christ or buddha or muhammed or maybe krishna, sets things straight and then gets back to watching. that's all there is to it. i hope that answers your question.

I'll tell you why people believe in god (4.33 / 3) (#859)
by limivore on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 04:56:10 PM EST

   First a convenient definition of  "I believe in god":

   "I hold the theory [your favorite definition of the term 'GOD' here] to be one that accurately reflects the REAL state of things and I therefor grasp this theory to me tightly. EG: I 'believe' it.".

Sound straight?

   Of course, people usualy do things because it serves them in a context much wider (than the merely logical) than the one they admit to. People usually say they 'believe' and mouth the appropriate responses because it makes their lives smoother with A) the society they have to live with and B) the programming they have to live with. This is all more or less automatic.

   That is to say, 99% of the population says what they say and thinks what they think more or less robotically because they're part of a social machine that makes them do it that way. Little actual conscious activity going on, tho most people would take this assertion as an insult of course and protest accordingly.

   It works this way for any belief system: scientific, religious, political, etc. People are, almost without exception, deeply robotic. Not utterly, but deeply. It's just the way things are. People are sleepwalkers. Clarity and wakefulness is the last thing anyone pursues. People are much more interested in having their favorite dreams come true.

   This accounts for only 99.999% of the population, however.

   There are a few people who see things in a way quite different from the rest and the term "god" suits them best for describing what they see- for what that's worth.

I for one see god, or something like that.

Like the Raja Yoga guys say : fuck faith and all that socialized nonsense, see for yourself. There are techniques.

Why? (3.66 / 3) (#861)
by dflux2140 on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 05:21:33 PM EST

Because there is too much stuff I cannot explain. There has to be someone somewhere fucking with me from behind a curtain.

My 2 pence (4.80 / 5) (#862)
by Black Mage on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 05:39:04 PM EST

An interesting sidenote... Have you noticed that since the invention of the video camera, that no sizable miracles have happened?

No Parting of Oceans, No speaking burning bushes, no seven mysterious plagues.

-----

The reason that people have religion, in my personal opinion, is comfort. If life is crap--people comfort themselves that there is a divine order to things, and everything will work out in the end.
------
>>> Black Mage [@]
... ? I think there are more Americans in the world than bullets. This upsets me. ? - me

Because we... and I.... (4.50 / 2) (#873)
by andreiko on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 09:12:02 PM EST

  • we have parents (who set the patern of being cared for by an omnipotent being)
  • we want to understand/explain stuff we can't (we have traded living as intuitive, feeling beings for living as reasoning beings... using reason more as an excuse/explanation for doing what we urge)
  • because our culture(s) are soaked with the idea of God which readily accomodates our needs
  • we like being right
  • we like being important,we like cliques
  • we like living without taking full responsibility for our actions (the negative side of "It's God's will", and "God, help me fix my car/have JLo fall in love with me!" etc.)
  • we don't see the world as it is; we see it as we are (paraphrased Zen saying)
I personally believe in God because I like feeling divine (In my book, God is IT, and everything is IT, molded in various forms and energies and fields, playing with IT in one endless boiling universe, now.)

Oh, and we like ganging on  others. Monotheism often brings the worst in us... Relax, people!

Too many people read the Bible/Koran as an instruction manual and not as a metaphor. This scares me.

-- Andreiko
-- pulling another golden egg out of his ass

Funny story about scientists (5.00 / 3) (#879)
by xeoatthermopylae on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 10:55:27 PM EST

Wolfgang Pauli once quipped about Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac that Dirac maintained "There is is no God and Dirac is his Prophet!"

Wrong question (3.00 / 4) (#885)
by I Robot on Mon Jun 23, 2003 at 11:55:45 PM EST

"Why do most people on the earth believe in a supreme being of some sort, especially one who fails to manifest himself to us?"

God has not failed to manifest himself -- you have failed to perceive him.

You might want to ask why you are unable to perceive him.

god is just a word (3.50 / 2) (#893)
by m a r c on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:33:58 AM EST

I do believe in a god as such but as soon as the word is mentioned it has all these religious connotations which i would like to avoid. I believe that the primary reason people believe in god is to provide a meaning for their own and everything else's existence. But why do we search? If we are a product of evolution then how does searching for meaning benefit our species survival? I suppose that this ties in with conciousness in that our awareness raises questions that are no longer answered by an interpretation of our perceptions.
I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.
The Existance of Order in the Universe (4.00 / 3) (#894)
by OldCoder on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:46:10 AM EST

From time to time, people have been arguing that the historical antagonism between science and religion has swung the other way, that there is a mutual attraction, in place of or at least in addition to that old antagonism. It has often been hard to express precisely what is meant.

I have been arguing that the existance of a scientifically ordered universe, and the applicability of some areas of mathematics (but not others) to this universe argues for another look at divine origins. Today I found some support from an unexpected source. The difference between physicist Poincaré and Einstein as described in the New York Times:

Ultimate truth was not a reason, he (Poincaré) explained. As a good rationalist Poincaré didn't think that scientists should make reference to "pseudo-religious" notions like the Order of Nature.
The full article is available, with registration, here.

Einstein was famous for (among many things) believing that there was order and logic and beauty to the Universe. To many others, this departure from practicality, from eclecticism, seemed "Un-scientific" and almost "Religious". However, Einstein was proved right.

Another reason that some people believe in God.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder

Religions are rumours around God's existence... (5.00 / 1) (#907)
by manmanman on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 06:36:55 AM EST

... so either you polemize, or you try to get an idea by yourself on the event and what did really happened.


Computer scientist, Montpellier, south of France.
Finding God (5.00 / 1) (#930)
by Elijah Buck on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 01:04:53 PM EST

So, your trying to find God? Great. Good luck. *I* don't care what you do. Biologists can search for new bacteria, physicists can search for new sub-sub-sub particles, and priests (or whatever they call themselves) can search for God. The search for God is just a little more popular because: a) you don't need an education to "feel God" b) Singing is fun c) Hot choir girls... As for rigidity of language: I wish that were always true. I know someone for which this does not hold true. It drives me crazy.

MLP (5.00 / 1) (#934)
by nooper on Tue Jun 24, 2003 at 02:19:19 PM EST

This thing about kissing hank's ass was funny http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

whatever gets you through the night (5.00 / 2) (#947)
by melior on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 02:04:06 AM EST

Tiger got to hunt
Bird got to fly
Man got to wonder
Why, why, why?


Tiger got to sleep
Bird got to land
Man got to tell himself
That he understands

The Book of Bokonon
- Kurt Vonnegut

- That's OK, I wasn't really using all of my Constitutional rights anyway...

God is supernatural. (5.00 / 1) (#949)
by ultimai on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 03:31:46 AM EST

Therefore, since God (Allah, Yahweh, or any other synommn) is supernatural, by definition, he is outside the realm of physical reality and therefore not provable by any physical experience.

People say that you can experience god via your soul. But the soul (spirit, ghost, what ever you wish to call it) is also supernatural.  Any experience given to a person by the soul could be taken as a mental construct if it is so chosen.

Scientific Knowledge/Scientific Process, also being a very young thing in the scale of things (500 years old) still has alot to learn about reality.  God today could be an absolute absurdity by todays scientific standard and in 200 years, the scientists of the future could be laughing at the absurdity of how we thought god was an absurdity.

So in conclusion, keep an unprejduced mind and actually look for the truth of this matter even more if it is important to you.  That means getting rid of your concept of what is the cultural norm, or your previous beliefs.  You may feel a paranoid fear from even becoming unprejudiced in this matter, as I have.  

meh (4.00 / 4) (#951)
by synik on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 04:24:40 AM EST

You people underestimate the bible, it is the best troll I have ever read.

Listen (3.75 / 4) (#954)
by PrinceSausage on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 05:24:15 AM EST

I really don't care if people are religious. You know, as long as they're nice people who don't slaughter goats on my front lawn or anything, I'm a pretty liberal guy. Yay religious freedom I say. However, there are things to do with this religion stuff that I simply don't understand. If I was God, unfortunately I'm quite far from omnipotent, just ask my wife, I think I'd be a bit more openminded than the judeo-christian God (or Allah for that matter). Both of those guys seem to be fairly stuck-up assholes if you listen to some of their followers. I mean seriously - as a parent you love all your children. You want to provide for them, help them and you know... do parenty stuff for them. Give'em cash and a big bag of groceries when they've spent all their money on margueritas down at Joni's All-Night Marguerita Binge. You don't go around condemning people because they are gay or like to get spanked on the ass by midgets or something along those lines. You see my point? There are a lot of rules (Here Find Thee My Ten Commandments, they be Ten, not eight or eleven but TEN because I say they are and you should shutup or snuffit) and according to most christians you end up in hell (oy vey) if you break them. But why? Why would God be such an asshole that he'd send people to hell because they didn't believe in him? Sounds like an unreasonable God if you ask me. Not very omnipotent. Rather like a small-minded dictator. A short, nasty one.

If there is a God, and if you ask me there isn't but please feel free to slaughter your goats anyway, I would think that he's a big-minded fellow who enjoy's a good laugh now and again and would enjoy good conversation and a good tne more than the incessant whining and tonedeaf wailing of the churchgoers.

Love and kisses.

Scientific method as means to gain religious exp? (5.00 / 1) (#957)
by cheesedog on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 10:09:25 AM EST

Does this count?:

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves--It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

Book of Alma, Chapter 32, verses 28-43

Science works! It DOES deliver, BUT. . . (5.00 / 1) (#960)
by Fantastic Lad on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 01:32:00 PM EST

Science is also hidden behind a giant public relations game, giant egos, giant lies, giant funding nightmares, giant government restrictions, and giant giant masses of stupid gullable people who believe the talking heads.

Science IS wonderful. It is the exploration of the universe.

But most people who think they know what's going on thanks to science are dupes. Plain and simple. They haven't got a clue.

Now, science and scientists who aren't part of the ball of illusion/delusion, realize that most of what is considered 'magic' and 'spiritual' are just parts of the same grand formula which makes the universe go 'round.

Case in point: EM isn't supposed to affect the human brain. "Cell phones do not present a danger. You can't manipulate human behavior by soaking their environment in EM waves." And yet, here's a an article from today's New York Times which shows very clearly that the human brain IS indeed affected by EM in a variety of interesting, if not outright-horrifying ways. Turning on and off the ability to speak. Creating idiot-savant like abilities for short periods of time. Stuff like that, all with plain old, low-level electromagnetics.

But the armies of people who grew up loving technology and watching science programs and building their own computers and such will still hiss and spit at you nonetheless, because they have all been told what to believe and refuse to see things differently. --Or rather, they can't (in all their rational-logical glory) deal with the emotional pain of having all their little EM emitting toys suddenly be bad. They deny, they self-delude. In short, they base all their bullshit on mindless 'Faith' in the face of all logic. They are the worst kind of zealot. No different than the idiot 'Bearded Man in the Sky' follower.

It's all the same ball of wax, and the truth of the matter is that almost nobody has the internal strength to open their eyes to look for what's really going on.

This is not to say that I don't think that God exists, but my definition of God does NOT sit well with the average bible thumper.

-FL

It's all so clear now (4.25 / 4) (#961)
by Magnetic North on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 01:50:15 PM EST

Religion.. You can take just so much bollocks.

I have no doubt on how most religions come into existence though. Just try some nice hallicunogens like psylocibin, and you will understand.



--
<33333
People don't believe in God. (5.00 / 2) (#965)
by Tezcatlipoca on Wed Jun 25, 2003 at 08:01:14 PM EST

Otherwise:

-Christians would be horrified about killing native people of other religions during the ages (they blantly ignore the teachings of the "son of god" himself, that by means of example prefered to die than to obliterate his torturers).

-Muslims would be horrified about 9/11.

-The Thai military (budhists) would have not massacred students in the 70s.

-The Japanese (shinto, budhists, Christians) would not have done what they did in WW2.

And so on and so forth.

Religious people would not be so ceratin about the absolute truth of the beliefs they hold if they truly believed in god. The thought that such a suppossed powerful being wastes its efforts in the insignificant creatures living in this stupid planet is so laughable that I don't understand how somebody can spouse seriously such ideas.

People think they believe because they have been conditioned to do so and because they are lazy and afraid.

They are lazy because they don't want to take responsibility here and now of their destiny. Millions of years of praying did not stop disease and poverty, a few hundred years of applying ourselves to the task has brought to us the best conditions of living for most people humanity has ever experiencied. This was not brought to you by god. This was brought to you by human ingenuity and self belief.

They are afraid because the answer "nothing has meaning or purpose" is so overwhelming to most that they go back to their fairytales like the intellectual childs they are.

I respect the beliefs of religious people, but I also respect children. I just don't believe religious people are in the same intellectual league as people that have decided to trust the evidence and erradicated a superior being from their frame of reference. I will listen to what religious people have to say when they make sense (like lets say a religious mathematician, I will pick the mathematics) but as soon as the religious blatter starts I just shut off my brain and frankly tune in to something more useful, as I should have done now, but it is always necessary to make the point that not everybody needs, desires or gives credence to the idea of a superior architect playing lego with the Universe.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?

Why? Are you a moron? (2.40 / 5) (#975)
by vile on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 04:54:47 AM EST

Because they do. Theists = Atheists. Words scramble people like crazy. Get a fucking clue. Or, read a joke: http://www.nmedia.net Or, ignore me. Fuck if I care. My two cents. :)

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
Religion (5.00 / 1) (#978)
by Cackmobile on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 07:57:09 AM EST

Is a tool of oppresion. It always have. I don't mind if you belive in god/allah/whatever (as silly as I think it is) but not religion. It a tool for the few to control the many. Personally the only religion I can stand is Buddhism. Not really a religion anyway. They are all about chilling and getting on with each other.

gambler's superstition (5.00 / 1) (#979)
by rrreee333 on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 11:56:25 AM EST



Because they are limited conscious animals (5.00 / 2) (#980)
by xutopia on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 01:18:07 PM EST

I truly believe that most of us are just conscious enough to peer into the scary world of existential questions but not intelligent or educated enough to fully comprehend that some thing are without a reason. For some though believing is a choice to not face the hard questions.

It's easier for many to believe that they have an immortal spirit rather than a limited consciousness. All our life we were conscious (to some degree) and letting go of that faculty when death comes knocking on your door is one of the hardest things we face.

Ask around you and you'll see that for many people it's much harder to see your father/mother die than it is to see your best friend pass away. Suddenly we have a sense of responsibility on our shoulders and it's though to handle. Who do we ask when in doubt? Who gives us that helping hand when we need one? Kinda helps to have that father figure to turn to when we need.

Myths are often created to explain difficult questions or facts. Remove all these instances and you'll be left with no reason to believe in God anymore.

We're on our own and as scary as it may be we may be capable of handling it ourselves.

It's not all black and white, you know. (4.50 / 2) (#981)
by cstorey on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 04:57:59 PM EST

Most people here seem to assume that you're either a theist of some description, agnostic or atheistic.

Not true. Instead of being mere black/white/grey, I see personal "religious beliefs"[0]. Myself, the description of pantheistic monolater seems to fit. As to why I believe in a deity of some kind, it's a case of "why not? Why close yourself to a plethera of experience because of some seemingly arbitary choice?".

IMHO, religious beliefs are a way of looking at the world, a system of symbols etc. intended to help us understand the world. I think that the reason so many are disenchanted with religion is that people forget the existance of the esoteric side of religion, instead of the day-to-day exoteric side of things.

I'll agree with the people who say it's seemingly a bunch of superstitious nonsense. I'd suggest they go investigate Thelema, starting with this which is a treatise on various mystical systems, and how they can be boiled down into their core functional parts.

Anyway, I digress. I'm a pantheist, because I believe the universe to be god. No more original sin for me, then. I am a monolater because I believe the various deities we worship to be aspects or facets of the divine, much like the names of netjer of the ancient egyptians. (Kemet.org has a better explaination). To me religion helps us make sense of the world, to see order in apparent chaos. Now, this might seem as intentional self delusion, but is it so bad if it has a positive effect?

Besides, I think the author means "cosmological", not "metaphysical".

[0] -- unfourtunately religion tends to have the connontation of organised religion, where you're told what to believe, instead of how to find out.
The reader of this signature may be a figment of their imagination.

I believe it's all coincidence (5.00 / 1) (#986)
by slaida1 on Fri Jun 27, 2003 at 02:36:27 AM EST

I believe all physical properties of this universe are tuned just the way they are by coincidence. Even with todays knowledge we know that the possibility of that is so small it's almost nonexistent. Almost.

Countless universes "big-bang" into existence and collapse away, their physical properties determined by processes (yet)unknown to us and time passes... I believe that given enough time, 'almost nonexistent possibility' is all that is needed to create us, for example.

We're the complete set of Shakespear's works written by one monkey out of a billion after almost infinite period of time has passed.

We don't know how many universes there were/is before/beside ours, percieve this as unique and maybe it is. But I find it odd that just because something seems very organized as if deliberately planned, some conclude that it is, forgetting that we're dealing with values and possibilities of astronomical scale here.

Now what does this belief make me? I've read many descriptions of various [[non]belief]-isms but not one of them describe this. I guess I'm just plain old me anyway, regardless.

On second thought, I don't want to be anything -ist just like many artists don't like their music get labeled under any particular music style.

Undistinguishable religions (5.00 / 1) (#994)
by rafael on Sat Jun 28, 2003 at 06:35:53 AM EST

I understand that religious people have arguments in favor of the truth of their own beliefs, and that atheists have arguments in favor of the non-existence of god(s).

Now, it seems to me that the arguments in favor of religions are more or less the same in every religion. I mean, arguments for the existence of a creator are not arguments for Christianism, since they apply as well to Islam, Judaism, etc. Another example : Muslims acknowledge Jesus' miracles, and acknowledge that Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion (although they have a different explanation than the Resurrection for this.) Thus the facts reported in the Gospels, even if one believes they are true, can't be taken as arguments in favor of any variant of Christianism.

Historical proofs are also used in favor of religions : the fact that Christianism succeeded in face of the persecution is taken as a proof that it's protected by God. But the fact that Islam sprayed very fast from Spain to India is also taken as a proof that it's protected by God !

Putting it shortly, arguments in favor of a religion seem to be independent of their religion. It seems to me that this consideration reduces to void all religious arguments, since they fail to explain the most important point : why a particular religion is true while all other are false. I think we're entering the realm of faith at this point : irrationnal, superceding.

Why I Believe (4.50 / 2) (#995)
by lpp on Sat Jun 28, 2003 at 08:15:56 AM EST

First, it is reasonable to point out I am a Christian, living in the United States, born in Texas and currently living in North Carolina. For many of you, this will be sufficient to believe that my faith stems solely from cultural and geosocial sources and has little to do with what I believe it does.

I have read some posts here and have spoken with folks who state they believe because of a feeling. Perhaps it is a feeling they get when they attend services, or when they are doing a good work, or whatever else. Others simply don't have an answer. They were raised that way and have never questioned their belief system.

Feelings, of course, can be misunderstood and misleading, and one who never questions their belief may be on the wrong track with the shade pulled down and no hope of finding the truth.

So...to the point. I believe because it is logical for me to believe. More specifically, I believe in the Christian god because it is logical for me to do so. There is sufficient historical evidence that Jesus did exist, in writings of not only Christian authors but also Jewish authorities of the time. Likewise, a study of the various books of the New Testament shows remarkably little variation throughout the years, to within several decades of the actual time of writing, indicating a high likelihood that the writings we have today match very closely with what was actually written at the time. So it appears to me that a person, Jesus, existed and that writings appeared shortly after his lifetime detailing what he said and did and what his direct followers said and did.

To address the question of whether those writings are accurate, one has to consider the historical context in which they were written and their content. At the time, Christians were not only oppressed, but their message was one that lacked the concept of wordly reward. The point being that even if a Christian survived oppression or escaped to another location, their reward was in heaven. This is as opposed to a religion which, although oppressed, provided the hope of earthly reward. Why is this important? Because without an earthly reward, there would be no earthly reason why the original believers would have received the deaths they did without recanting. Of the original apostles, only one died of "natural" causes. All of the others died gruesome deaths as a direct result of their beliefs. And if any of them had recanted their beliefs, you can be sure the opponents of Christianity would have jumped on it. These men also did not lead lives attractive by worldly standards. They lived in relative poverty doing the work of their Lord.

So, at this point, it appears to me there was a Jesus, we have writings indicating what he said and did and what his followers said and did, we have no indications that those who wrote these things ever recanted their testimony, and no reason to believe they were gaining any earthly reward for their pain and suffering. It is reasonable then to believe that they at least believed what they had written. So the question then comes to whether what they believed was true.

If the apostles, those who actually saw and talked with Jesus, did not believe, and were not deceiving others for personal reward, then that pretty much leaves only delusion. It doesn't seem reasonable, however, that 12 delusional men with common lowly backgrounds could manage to write things that are as internally and cooperatively consistent as are found in the New Testament. In addition, I find it unreasonable to believe that those to whom they brought the faith would have opted to believe and be converted by lunatics into a faith which promised them nothing but the likelihood of punishment and ostracism.

In addition, there is the tomb. Jesus was laid to rest in a donated tomb. His followers claimed the tomb was empty. Wouldn't the Jews have produced the body in order to squelch this religious rebellion outright? Wouldn't the Roman guards, for whom dereliction would mean death, have reason to produce the corpse in order to defend their own lives? Yet everyone who had reason and opportunity to produce the corpse of Jesus failed to do so. And if Jesus was not who he said he was, would his followers have been able to muster the courage to go steal a corpse guarded by Roman guards? Even if they did, it is unlikely they would have died to continue a deception that provided them nothing but the chance to be a target for every Jewish non-Christian of the time.

I admit I am not a scholar of many other faiths, but I have spent some time investigating numerous other belief systems. None have provided as much rationale as the Christian faith. There are times when, quite frankly, I would rather not believe, when it is outright inconvenient to believe. Likewise, sometimes I wish I could just bend the laws of physics, just a little. Yet, inconvenient or not, I cannot ignore what reason has given me.

Regards,

lpp

seminal essence (5.00 / 1) (#999)
by shwag on Sat Jun 28, 2003 at 10:12:41 PM EST

yah, "great flood" probably is a preminition of something from the past. But you are doing us the good service of putting "Many people feel that God is watching out for them", and similair statements, into our minds. Propigating the words God in your non-thought provoking psuedo-analysis. Next time someone starts talking about GOD ,unfounded and lacking proof, you should persuade them that maybe its not worth talking about.

Need for something greater (5.00 / 1) (#1000)
by onyxruby on Sun Jun 29, 2003 at 04:44:37 AM EST

Because we have a need for something greater than ourselves. Whether it is nationalism, religion, or politics, we can gain purpose and fulfillment. The specific scope of the thing is largely not relevant, just that their is such a thing. Even AA with it's 12 steps requires the acceptance of a higher power as one of the earliest steps. The purpose is to help us with our perspective on things.

Not only that, but let's face it, the prospect of Humanity being the highest form of intelligence out there is pretty damn depressing. Top of the food chain, fine, top of righteous chain, not a pretty sight. Ultimately it doesn't much matter what, if anything you worship, so long as you live your life in an ethical and moral manner that betters yourself, your family, and your society.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

I know... (4.00 / 2) (#1006)
by resquad on Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 10:53:59 AM EST

...Why I belive.  Its simple.  Because <u>I Am God</u>.


-----------
"I WIN THE END!" -Me
organized religion sux (5.00 / 1) (#1008)
by CyBernY on Tue Jul 01, 2003 at 09:03:55 AM EST

As soon as you start organizing religion you have to find the lowest common denominator and compromise until ther's nothing great to belive left and in the end you got some dogmas to make people do stuff the normaly wouldn't do. Beliving in any form of god is good.. why not.. at least it's fun... if you do it for yourself... all hail Heimdall :P

Game Theory? (4.33 / 3) (#1012)
by PunkAssBitch on Wed Jul 02, 2003 at 01:18:26 PM EST

I'm not sure if it's called game theory, but anyway ...

There are two possibilities: 1) God exists, or 2) God doesn't exist (or maybe he does and the old guy's just not the tempermental ass-kicker the Old Testament makes him out to be).

We all have two choices: 1) we believe in the kind of God that whips up on non-believers with eternal hell-fire, or 2) we don't.

So, there are 4 possible outcomes:

  1. We believe + God exists = Heaven, eternal glee
  2. We believe + God doesn't exist = Get made fun of by smart asses on K5
  3. Don't believe + God doesn't exist = Less praying, get to make fun of folks in 1 and 2.
  4. Don't belive + God exists = Eternal damnation and hellfire.
So, it seems that #4 is the kicker.  Despite the possible perception of low probability of God's existence, the negative outcome of not believing still sucks REAL bad.  Since the negative outcomes of believing are minimal, lots of folks just believe.  Works out just like buying insurance.

Final note: It's interesting how fired up folks get about this whole God business. An article on the fascinating and mind-bending implications of Einstein's theory of relativity musters 80 or 90 comments, while anything with the word "God" in it stirs up armies of believes and non-believers alike - there are already over 1,000 comments here.

I believed in god because I was told to. (3.50 / 2) (#1032)
by atheist on Thu Jul 10, 2003 at 02:32:22 PM EST

Then, I started thinking about it. I started reading about it. I thought some more. I researched some more...

I stopped believing in god.



ooo
Unlike religion, the freedom to think cannot be imposed on anyone.
My God! (5.00 / 1) (#1034)
by HollyHopDrive on Sun Jul 13, 2003 at 05:32:00 PM EST

I'm an agnostic. If you ask me whether I believe in God, the honest answer is 'I try.'

But reading these comments is almost enough to make me move to the Vatican. Almost all of the comments which are sensitive, intelligent and thought-provoking are from the believers. The majority of comments from non-believers amount to very little more than insulting or abusing those who are theists of some sort. I have often thought that atheists are the ones most likely to try to impose their beliefs on religion, because they think trying to change a believer's mind doesn't constitute imposition. It simply isn't true.

The impression I'm getting right now is that those who believe in God are generally pensive, thoughtful and a lot deeper than those who think abusing them somehow makes a valid argument for atheism.

I know which type of person I'd rather be.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.

Awake in Wonder (none / 0) (#1039)
by This Eloquent Fool on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 10:53:53 PM EST

Had one asked me at the beginning of this year whether or not I believed in God or had any tolerance towards religion, my answer would've been unevquivically no. Of course, the power a good woman has over a man is an incredible thing. After seeing the faith in my current girlfriend and how good of a person it has made her, I've since been completely unable to deny the positive aspects of religion. To put it simply, up until now, Xianity scared me and the rest of the religions were tolerable, but not my choice. Now, dispite all of the love and respect I have for the girlfiend and her faith, I still have no belief in God, and thus, cannot adhere to any thesistic religion. I have a great admiration of faith in anyone, as long as they don't try to discredit or destroy someone else's faith, and as of last week, have started working my way through the Abramic texts, studying each one in sequence (Torah - New Testement - Qur'an). I can't accept what they say as true, but I can read them to better understand the beliefs of others.

So if I have such an adoration of faith, why do I have none? Well, put simply, I've built my life around the principal that I am alone in this world, and that the only way I will succeed is through hard work and determination. There is no fate or destiny to slack on, there is no God to pray to. There are also other factors, such as the fact that a diety just doesn't "feel" right to me, but that is the largest piece of the pie. I am NOT a supporter of the "science disproves it" theory (too cop outish). Now, I'd like to clarify that I'm not athiest, I suppose I'm a hopeful agnostic. I guess I hope there is a God, of only so my lover's faith is justified, but I can't see it. I've also come to realize that I'll never believe in a God, dispite anything anyone may say to me or try to do to me to make me believe, no book I read or circle I attend will create a belief in me, because if I can stare into the eyes of the woman i love and see her faith and still not believe, I don't think anything else will make me save some personal epiphany or insight I might aquire after some trial in my life.

Now, unfortunately for us, my girlfriend has to be with a religious man. Its that simple. Religion plays such a role in her life, that it would be incredibly hard for her to spend her life with a non-believer like myself, and it makes a lot of sense, if she has to get up at 5:00 am to pray every morning, she should be with someone who will wake up with her and pray with her. So our relationship seems to be on borrowed time, but the awakening I've gotten from being with her, will last even if our relationship doesn't.

anyway, there's my piece
We'll all speak slowly if your on something, or faster if your not.
Let's face it, 90% are cowardly, weak and dumb (1.00 / 1) (#1040)
by Ayn on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 11:15:25 AM EST

Let's face it. People who believe in a supreme being are cowardly, weak and dumb.

It is much easier to think:
"That was not my fault, it was the will of god - I'm not responsible."
"It was god given, I can't do anything against it"
"Anything will be better in heaven"
"I will do it in my next live"

Bullshit

YOU only YOU and nobody else is responsible for all that shit happens.
And you don't get a second change.
The End is the End is the End. (dot)

Ayn
--
Es muss endlich was passieren! - http://feldpolitik.de
A Basic Human Need (none / 0) (#1045)
by gboethin on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 05:36:28 AM EST

Why do people believe in God?  Let me reword that: Why do the majority of people in this world believe in a higher being--whether that be God, Allah, Buddah, etc.?  That's something I've been thinking about for a long time, and very seriously as of lately.  I'm glad I have the opportunity to share my two cents.

If you asked me why so many people believe in a higher power, I'd say that there are a number of reasons.  But in my opinion one reason stands high above the rest, and is the root of all other reasons.  People believe in a higher power because they need to believe in a higher power.  That might sound trite, but I believe it's a profound statement, as simple as it may be.  

Why do people need to believe in a higher power?  For a large number of reasons, but most are to somehow bring security to the very insecure lives they live.  Along with that, to allow them to believe that they have control over circumstances in their lives that they wouldn't otherwise have control over.

The truth is that the world is a very scary place, to even the most privileged of people, in the most privileged of places.  No person can live without fear of cancer, or a nuclear war, or even a meteor smashing into the earth--these are things that even the most powerful of people can't prevent from happening.  These are things that scare all of us.  And none of us like to admit or accept the fact that there's nothing we can do to eliminate these dangers.

To me, the answer to the question of "Why do people believe in God?" is a matter of human nature.  By saying that I don't mean to imply that it's a human instinct to believe in a higher power.  But I do believe that it's a human instinct to do our best to make our lives secure, and eliminate (or reduce) the dangers that threaten us.  Humans need security in their lives, but they realize that there are certain insecurities that they are incapable of eliminating.  So their solution is to bring a higher being into the picture, who will protect them and provide for them, and ultimately give them control over the circumstances they have no control over--including what happens after they die.

Another thing: the belief in a higher being establishes hope, and that's something I believe is absolutely necessary in the lives ALL people.  When times are bad we need to be able to believe that they will get better, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.  For many people--especially less fortunate people-- belief in a higher being is the only reason they have to believe things will get better, and consequently the only reason they have to go on.  That's another reason so many people need to believe in a higher being.

As to the questions of:
1)    Is there a god?
2)    Which god is the real god?
3)    Etc.

I personally believe that the only intelligent approach to any of these questions to say you don't know.  Period.  I think some of the most foolish people in the world are scientists who don't believe there is a god--or who even lean that direction.  Why? Because they have no basis for that belief, and because they fail to see the big picture.  Science has revealed many of the secrets to the universe to us, and I wouldn't be surprised if the human race knew every thing about the universe, someday.  But the universe is only a small part of the picture of our existence--or the existence of anything, including matter, space, and time.  The answer to the question of why there is a universe cannot be contained within the universe--and the "Big Bang Theory" doesn't explain that either (for all you scientists).  Even Einstein said it would be foolish to deny the possibility of a higher being.

As far as the question: Is there a god, and which god is the real god?  Let me say this: I was born into a devout Christian family, and was a Christian myself for about the first 22 years of my life.  I was completely convinced that I was going to heaven and everyone else who was going to hell.  Then I realized something: the high majority of religions encourage the exact same way of thinking.  To elaborate a little... there are many Muslims who think that Christians will not be going to heaven, and there are probably many Buddhists who think that Muslims won't be going to heaven (truthfully I don't know much about the Buddhist religion--I'm just guessing).  It even goes as far that Mormons don't think Christians will be going to heaven, and Jehovah's Witnesses don't think Mormons will be going to heaven.

The point is that most religions are very similar; at least the fundamental points of most religions are alike.  Every religion has a different god, and although each god prefers to be worshiped in a different way, and has different laws, each god has one thing in common: if you don't believe in him, you're going to hell--or you're going to come back as a fly, or something negative like that.

When you step back and look at the big picture, and see billions of people in hundreds of different religions, all convinced their religion, which is fundamentally very similar to the others, is the only correct religion--and their god is the only real god--what you see are billions of people acting the same.  And when you realize that you're only one out of 5 billion people who are basically acting the same, you become less sure that you've chosen the correct religion.  And if you really think about it... if there are 100 religions to choose from, and only one is right, that means 99 are wrong.  When 100 religions are fundamentally very similar, why would 1 be right and 99 be wrong?  More than likely, if 99 religions are wrong, 100 religions are wrong.

As far as the "evidence" people use to support their belief in god: I call that wishful thinking... maybe even "needful" thinking.  People need to confirm their belief in something that's very difficult to believe in, so they see what they want to see.  A positive coincidence becomes a miracle.  And when they pray for something and get what they prayed for it, it was undoubtedly the work of God--even though people who don't believe in God get what they want as often as God-fearing people do.  Most of us used the same style of wishful thinking when we very young, when we started finding the whole notion of Santa Claus hard to swallow.  Even after we saw our parents putting presents under the tree, and saw isles and isles of toys at department stores (instead of at the North Pole) we found ways to keep believing in Santa Claus, because it was such a wonderful notion we didn't want to let it go.  The same thing happens with adults and religion.

Anyways, who knows if there's a god or not?  Not me.  I think the best approach to this very troubling issue is to keep your mind open and do your best to live a good life.  That way if there is a god, and he's a good god, and he's separating the good from the bad, you'll have a good chance at going where the good people go.  And if he truly is a good and just god, I don't think he's going to get hung up on a technicality like whether you were Christian, Mormon, Muslim, or non-believer.  I would hope that your actions would carry a lot more weight than which church you went to, or whether you read the bible or the Koran.

On the other hand, if there is a god, and we need to believe in him in order to go to heaven, I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to discuss this in hell.                  

'The unexamined life is not worth living' (none / 0) (#1049)
by IanM on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 12:27:03 AM EST

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed and who lived each day in luxury. At his door lay a diseased beggar named Lazarus. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man's table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores. Finally, the beggar died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Lazarus in the far distance with Abraham.

"The rich man shouted, `Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in these flames.'

"But Abraham said to him, `Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. Anyone who wanted to cross over to you from here is stopped at its edge, and no one there can cross over to us.'

"Then the rich man said, `Please, Father Abraham, send him to my father's home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them about this place of torment so they won't have to come here when they die.'

"But Abraham said, `Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read their writings anytime they want to.' "The rich man replied, `No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will turn from their sins.'

"But Abraham said, `If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead.' "

- Luke 16:19-31

All people believe in a higher being, be it fate, chance, karma, or God. Control is held by no man, so that makes us all weak, as we are bound by outside forces.

Each and everyone of us do what we know to be wrong, be this from our conscience or from a moralistic viewpoint.

This is where Truth comes into play, now there was a man named Jesus that was born approx 2000 years ago, we know this from both biblical writings and from a vast number of other documents. We based our dating system around this event (BC/AD) and many other parts of our lives (marriage, birth, death, etc). If you deny his existance then you have created your own reality (a psychological disorder). To deny the existance of Jesus is to deny any person that has ever lived that you have not seen with your own eyes, there is evidence far beyond a doubt.

So now that we know this has truth, what did he claim? what did he do to back up his claims? I will leave this up to you to do your own research as I am getting RSI writing this essay, I dont want to start another.

One thing he did claim to be was the Son of God, and proved this through multitude of miracles witnessed by thousands of poeple, and also defeated death (something no mear man has done).

So why did he come?

There are many reasons but the one that is most relevant to you is the fact that we all stuff up, no one is perfect, we have all lied (that makes us liars), we have all stolen (that makes us theives), etc. So we have a predicament, the only way to heaven is perfection, and we have all blown that, so the only other way is through Jesus. He came to take the punishment that we deserve. Just as a murdurer will be brought before a judge and sent to jail to be punished, we will come before God and be judged for what we have done on this earth.

Those that come before God as christians (Gods people), will say they deserve to go to Hell but only through Jesus will they enter Heaven (or words to that effect), this is Grace.

If you choose to reject this, then you reject God and your punishment will be eternal seperation from everything you know to be good. If you choose this option, then that is up to you, I am only a former strong atheist informing people of the Truth, Truth can not be relative then it would not be Truth, so I encourage you to research your beliefs from all angles.

Dont make my mistake and attempt to setup a belief system based on opinion, remember everyone has an opinion, they cant all be right.

If I am RIGHT then all other beliefs are WRONG, they can not co-exist.

'The unexamined life is not worth living'
- Socrities

Why do people believe in God? | 1048 comments (1038 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!