Do we need a religion to believe in God?

I have plenty of meaning in my life, in my love for my husband, family and friends, in my enjoyment of the natural world, in the pride and joy I take in my work, and in pursuing my various hobbies and interests.

We are not discussing ツ"atheism vs theismツ" (don't write ツ'offtop'), such topic is for other thread, I think. If you want I can explain my point of view. ツ'Meaningless' means that all meanings of our life are illusions and dust. That is like a man blowing soap bubbles. He also says that he has a real meaning in his life right now. But it is foolish, isn't it? He has the meaning only until the moment when his soap water comes to end and bubbles disappear after a minute. Try and remember Greek legend about labor of Sisyphus. It is not only a fairy tale, but an allegory of our routine life reality. If you don't believe in God and our supreme purpose, then you say that everything you and all mankind make and create will disappear like a soap bubble. Thank you for such ツ"optimisticツ" view. Do you enjoy it? I do not.

I think the reason why some people say atheists/agnostics have live meaningless lives is because part of believing in God is the belief that we have a purpose.

If you say ツ"we have no purposeツ", that means that our life is meaningless. That is what I said.
 
If you don't believe in God and our supreme purpose, then you say that everything you and all mankind make and create will disappear like a soap bubble. Thank you for such ツ"optimisticツ" view. Do you enjoy it? I do not.

So you choose to take the path that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Note: just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn't make it true. There is an interesting quote by Carl Sagan. It reads, "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
 
We are not discussing ツ"atheism vs theismツ" (don't write ツ'offtop'), such topic is for other thread, I think. If you want I can explain my point of view. ツ'Meaningless' means that all meanings of our life are illusions and dust. That is like a man blowing soap bubbles. He also says that he has a real meaning in his life right now. But it is foolish, isn't it? He has the meaning only until the moment when his soap water comes to end and bubbles disappear after a minute. Try and remember Greek legend about labor of Sisyphus. It is not only a fairy tale, but an allegory of our routine life reality. If you don't believe in God and our supreme purpose, then you say that everything you and all mankind make and create will disappear like a soap bubble. Thank you for such ツ"optimisticツ" view. Do you enjoy it? I do not.
If you say ツ"we have no purposeツ", that means that our life is meaningless. That is what I said.

I would think just the opposite, because life is short and will disappear it makes each moment all the more rare and meaningful. As humans we give much more meaning and value to things that are scarce than things that are abundant.

As to what will happen when we are gone, we simply can't know. We can believe whatever we wish to believe, but we cannot know. We can and do know, however, that we are alive here and now in this world and I believe that we should make the most of this short life by finding happiness for ourselves, and showing love and compassion to others.

You may disagree, but I think this is a very optimistic view.
 
If you don't believe in God and our supreme purpose, then you say that everything you and all mankind make and create will disappear like a soap bubble. Thank you for such "optimistic" view. Do you enjoy it? I do not.
If you say "we have no purpose", that means that our life is meaningless. That is what I said.

Probably, this is one reason why some people prefer believing in some religion and others do not need to believe in religious teachings. The former could be those who feel life is empty and scaring if what we have is only this life and there is nothing after we die. The latter could be those who can accept the possibility that there is nothing after our death and feel life is full of purpose.
 
So you choose to take the path that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Note: just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn't make it true. There is an interesting quote by Carl Sagan. It reads, "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

It's hard to say if knowing all makes one happy or not. Sometimes it is better not to know the cruel truth.
 
So you choose to take the path that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

No, I prefer the life which have meaning to meaninless existence. You try to narrow religion to comfort and fuzzy in soul. That is not right. As for Sagan and other million atheists, I'd like to ask them "...what are we living for?" and why "the show must go on"?. All this science gives the illusive feeling of grasping the Universe. "Blind guides (of the blind)". Such know-alls teach another religion, the religion of science. They really "do not need hypothesis of God" (Laplace), they are successful and feel "fuzzy inside". Religion is not for such persons. But what will they say to the following cry:

"Inside my heart is breaking
...

Whatever happens
I'll leave it all to chance
Another heartache
Another failed romance
On and on, does anybody know
what we are living for?

I guess I'm learning
I must be warmer now
I'll soon be turning
round the corner now
Outside the dawn is breaking
but inside, in the dark
I'm aching to be free "

QUEEN

That is pain, that is a cry from the heart, and neither false knowledge nor science can give an answer. You can't deceive the heart and the soul. If a doctor put on a narcosis mask on a patient that is not enough to cure him of a disease. Religion does not only teach people what to do and to think. It is the solution of problems which cannot be solved in other ways. It is the reply to the pain of suffering soul. It is healing.
 
As for Sagan and other million atheists, I'd like to ask them "...what are we living for?" and why "the show must go on"?. All this science gives the illusive feeling of grasping the Universe.

Science also tells us that life forms exist to leave their genes to the next generation. From this perspective, bring up children is a very meaningful purpose of life. Without believing in a religion, parenting the child and educating the young could provide meaning to life.

Religion does not only teach people what to do and to think. It is the solution of problems which cannot be solved in other ways.
Believing in a religion must be preferred when one finds no solution to problems in life, then.
 
Last edited:
No, I prefer the life which have meaning to meaninless existence.

And like others have proven before me, namely becki_kanou, religion is not necessary to give meaning or purpose to life.

As for Sagan and other million atheists, I'd like to ask them "...what are we living for?" and why "the show must go on"?.

That is a question that has a different answer for each individual. Perhaps somebody's reason to live is to raise a family, become famous, help others, or better mankind. On a day-to-day basis, it's just our will to survive as a species. Humans, like other species, have evolved to survive. If they didn't then obviously they would not have survived, it's as simple as that.

All this science gives the illusive feeling of grasping the Universe. "Blind guides (of the blind)". Such know-alls teach another religion, the religion of science.

It is hardly "illusive" as you put it. We actually DO understand the universe better through science. And science is hardly a religion. It does not rely on faith; it relies on empirical evidence. Sure, an idea could be wrong. But that's the beauty of science; admitting you're wrong even if it means shaking the foundation of our understanding. Religion is absolutely right against all evidence. That is the difference between the two.

They really "do not need hypothesis of God"

There are plenty of Christian/religious scientists. It's just that science says nothing about a god. It is impossible to since it is in God's nature to not be empirically observed or tested.

Religion does not only teach people what to do and to think. It is the solution of problems which cannot be solved in other ways. It is the reply to the pain of suffering soul. It is healing.

That is what I meant by the "warm and fuzzy" factor. If someone is confronted with a tough situation in life, they fall back on their religion for help. If someone loses someone dear to them, they turn to religion to help them get through it.

However, not everybody does so. Not everybody in the world needs a religion to fall back onto to help them through tough times. Some people get through on their own accord and strength.

I have no qualms with someone who believes in a god or follows a religion. But don't say that just because you are agnostic/atheist there is no purpose to your life or it's a "meaningless" existence as you put it.
 
Sorry if I may offend some, but the question was asked and I am answering

No, we do not need religion to believe in God as religion, as well as 'god' is a man made tool by so-called "rulers" of man to control the lives of mankind to do what the rulers tell them to do and sadly, like sheep many people believe what they are taught without doing no research on their own. I believe that religion was invented to convince sheeple who cannot think on their own that there is a god and that you better do what we tell you to do or you will suffer for all eternity as we are the spokesmen of god. Is mankind really that simpleminded and easily led? Sadly, I believe the answer to be yes.

No one on earth knows what "God" is and to claim that one does is an out and out lie as no one has ever met God nor has he/she/it ever shown him/herself to the world in the last 5,000 years or so.

The ancient texts of the bible/koran/torah claim that 'God' created us "in his image" and set down rules and laws for us to follow and then he suddenly disappears never to show himself again while his "children" kill each each other in his name and there are many religions claiming that their 'god' is the one and true god. Is this the image I want to have of a "God"? No way.

The Christians proclaim that their God is the true God and that he proved it by sending Jesus, his, "son" to earth and all others are false gods.

The Jews proclaim that their God is the true God and that the Christians and others are wrong.

The Muslims proclaim that theirs is the true God and that all others are false.

And for the past 5,000 years humans have been killing and warring on each other in the "name of their God" and the world has never been at peace nor will it ever be at peace as long as religion is involved. I believe that in order to find true peace one has to do away with religion completely. However, that will never happen in this insane world of ours when people place complete faith in their rulers whithout question and believe, like sheep being led to the slaughter, whatever they are told. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

Because of this I am an agnostic:

Bertrand Russell said:
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Sure, I believe something created this vast and wonderful universe of ours, but whomever or whatever it is, it is something we will never comprehend on this planet and in this life. Therefore, because we cannnot comprehend it, we believe there must be a god or something that created us and we produced fairlytales to convince ourselves and those we wish to rule over that there was a god who created us and we used "prophets" and religious leaders of the past along with a "religion" to prove our point when the fact remains, if there was a true God he would never have forsaken his children and left us to fend for ourselves killing each other for millenia in his name. I believe He would have shown himself to us by now as it was claimed he did in the past.

Religion gives people peace of mind and allows someone else to do their thinking for them. Therefore they feel at peace. If that is what they feel, then so be it. Just please don't try and convince me that there is a god and that religion is the only way to salvation and eternity.

Does this mean that I am without beliefs? No, I am a very spiritual person in my own way, it's just not the way of the masses. I prefer to follow my own path and, if there truly is a god, that is the way he would prefer it I believe.

Therefore, to reiterate, no, we do not need religion to believe in god as both are man made for the sole control of man and nothing more.
 
Science also tells us that life forms exist to leave their genes to the next generation. From this perspective, bring up children is a very meaningful purpose of life.

What for? It is a preposterous idea to reduce our life to reproduction. Do you think it's enough? For me it's not. Everybody knows that the end of every man is death and such death can be very agonising. When you give birth to a child and bring him up you certainly know that he(she) will eventually die and it is very likely that his(her) death will be accompanied with hard throes. What do you think of it? Try to understand what you really suggest. What do you think of a person bringing up his child to die in the throes? Can you say it's a good meaning of life?

And for the past 5,000 years humans have been killing and warring on each other in the "name of their God" and the world has never been at peace nor will it ever be at peace as long as religion is involved.

It makes no difference for people in name of what to kill each other. For example, you suggest to do away with religion. Well, such idea is all played out. For example in Russia (XXth century) and in France (XVIIIth century) And what was the result? Death and blood. Such ideas bring inside them very dangerous views. When you say about doing away with smth, for some reason, you don't think ofthose who need it. That is not good. Besides that it's due to some scientists the world stood on the verge of nuclear catastrophe but nobody will say about doing away with science.
 
Last edited:
And science is hardly a religion. It does not rely on faith; it relies on empirical evidence. Sure, an idea could be wrong. But that's the beauty of science; admitting you're wrong even if it means shaking the foundation of our understanding. Religion is absolutely right against all evidence. That is the difference between the two.

NB! Just a remark. Science relies not only on empirical evidence. For example geomentry is based on axioms which can't be proved empiricaly. And what do you think of how people learnt that the Earth revolves around the sun? Empirical evidence proved conrary view.
 
Last edited:

NB? Sorry, I am unfamiliar with that term.

Science relies not only on empirical evidence. For example geomentry is based on axioms which can't be proved empiricaly.

True, axioms cannot be proven simply because they are the starting point; there is nothing from which to prove them. However, they aren't based on faith. They can be observed to be true. Therefore yes, they are, strictly speaking, empirical.

And what do you think of how people learnt that the Earth revolves around the sun? Empirical evidence proved conrary view.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, perhaps something got lost in translation? Yes, we discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun through empirical evidence. It was only contrary because the Church said otherwise.
 
sorry, excessively verbose..

The gospel of brutal nihilism preached by science, that all things will end at some point in the next ten bijillion years as the observed mechanisms of the universe grind to a halt ( last time I checked anyway) allows for complete and utter freedom from responsibility.This is a fact based on observation that a closed system subject to entropy, if left to its own devices for long enough will collapse in on itself as its force, fuel or what have you end, and logically extending this to the universal scale. I wholly agree with this summation, as it explains observed facts. Apply that to your personal life, and you can act however you want without fear of retribution, so long as you don't mind or manage to avoid the necessary consequences of contravening human society's necessary mechanisms ( which are often religion based, but thats a different story).

That out of the way, religion(from a Greek word "Religios" meaning to bind, if I remember rightly) itself is variable in incarnation, so I'll render it to consistent facts:
1. Religion typically proscribes how to act, think, react etc
2. This can and does directly appeal to individuals who crave structure, or appreciate some other facet of the presentation of the basic set of thou shalts etc. Examples being interest free loans , burning of your enemies, isolation from market forces of personal livestock etc etc etc.
3. Traditionally, its interpretation has been left to individuals who can be rendered infallible, often retroactively.
4. This allows those enlightened with the gospel of entropy and nihilism ( or just plain greed) to superimpose their will on others, and being able to do this from a position of infallibility allows for all sorts of silly acts, the Catholic Crusades being the oft quoted example ( I challenge you to find a verse in The Bible that says to the effect of " The gentiles shall redeem Jerusalem" It says something to quite the opposite throughout, and explicitly near the end).
5. Religion then becomes little more than a lifestyle shared to greater or lesser extents by it's adherents.

Faith on the other hand, is the firmly held belief that X is so (even when you cannot demonstrate it ), with religion providing the "and therefore I shall do this". I propose then that if awareness of Our Father Which Art In Heaven ( Hallowed be Thy Name), The 2 million Kami in and around Japan's landscape, the reincarnation of one's dead grandfather as a wizened potato or what have you, occurs to *anyone* they will act in some way, with the generation of religion (or apathy) being the mainstream reaction to some grand shared stimulae.

Religion, being often dictated by (or indeed, to) clever old men who probably don't want to do any heavy lifting must then be self propagating for where that faith (the awareness of X) is lacking or it will collapse, as it did in e.g. Egypt and Ankhnatenwhatsit's worship of the Sole Sun God (albeit replaced with the older Pantheist religion, and eventually Islam).

So according to these observations, it is my understanding that, yes you can believe in God without subscribing to a religion, but you will probably react one way or another according to your belief which, in effect becomes your own religion if its not one of the existing ones. Whether the faith or the religion holds the greater sway is a matter for debate, in western tradition spurned on by swords, red hot pokers and the founding of new nations.

Full disclosure: I aspire to John Knox-esque Puritan doctrine in following my faith in the Triune God Almighty, The Terror of Israel, with the Holy Bible as His divinely inspired word. I have yet to find anywhere therein that the I AM prevents the existence of any of the countless other spirits venerated by other religions, based on the fact that He Himself acknowledges certain specimen's existence, and frequently uses the word detestable in describing them as groups or individually.
So aye, cake anyone? 😊
 
Yes, we discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun through empirical evidence. It was only contrary because the Church said otherwise

Such point of view is rather primitive. Scientific disputes about heliocentricism were continued over a long period of time. And the main reason was the lack of empirical evidence. It is Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish monk, who was the author of heliocentricism. And his theory opponents were famous matematician François Viète, Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe and philosopher Francis Bacon. Besides that, at first Copernicus didn't want to publish his work but was supported by Catholic bishop of the town of Kulm Nicolas Schomberg and priest Tideman Gise (sorry my orthography, I don't know how to spell some names in English) and his theory was defended simultaneously by Galileo and another Catholic priest Paolo Foscarini.
Acquaint yourself with the information about heliocentricism and give up ridiculous views of antireligious propaganda. Truth is above all.
 
No, I prefer the life which have meaning to meaninless existence. You try to narrow religion to comfort and fuzzy in soul. That is not right. As for Sagan and other million atheists, I'd like to ask them "...what are we living for?" and why "the show must go on"?. All this science gives the illusive feeling of grasping the Universe. "Blind guides (of the blind)". .

You're either not that familiar with Sagan or you purposely ignore the value he placed on life and his actually quite noticable spirituality. He may have been a scientist and had to maintain a certain level of detachment but he was not void of heart. He had clear messages about how sacred life was, about how there was more to life than met the eye, and that we may not be alone in the Universe thus leaving open the possibility for even more meaning, a stronger base of reference for our human experience, etc. I'd say he was looking upwards just like everyone else, except his viewpoints didn't stop at a man in the clouds, he looked way beyond.

Was he looking for the same thing as the highly religious? Yes he was. Did he find it in God? Apparently not. Who can judge who though, who was looking in the right direction?

Your point about people lacking meaning in their life is spot-on, people who live for nothing but money, the material, for power, for things that will fade away, yes this is foolish.

But meaning is completely subjective and there is no way to determine whether an individual lacks meaning in their life, short of them telling you this. Having family, friends, academic goals, personal goals, these are what get people up in the morning and create action and interaction, plenty of meaning there. To this end, religion is not necessary for meaning in life. It can enhance it for some, and it falls short of it for others.

Futhermore since the church dictates a lot of what its followers should be doing its difficult to determine just how many of the religious are actually finding meaning in their lives. There are a lot of frustrated, unanswered prayers out there that get uttered everyday in hospitals, bedrooms, kitchen tables, all the places people sit and think and fall into despair. For these people religion brings little meaning to life, if anything it can leave them quite confused.

This question/topic is a wonderful point of discussion but there are as many right answers as there would have been had the question been 'What's the best way to make an apple pie'. No use getting your feathers ruffled.
 
Futhermore since the church dictates a lot of what its followers should be doing its difficult to determine just how many of the religious are actually finding meaning in their lives.

Such view on religion is rather simplified. That's not good. I'll try to explain it. If you are not a follower of any religion, your look on this subject is defective. It's just like a new dish. You can see it, smell it, but you can't understand its flavour until you taste it. From outer point of view religion is the set of obscure statements and unnecessery regulations. But such view is superficial. Religion is the way, first of all. It is the way up. All restrictions are only means to achieve the goal. Such way is only for those who need it, those who are not satisfied by his/her life (either successful or not, it doesn't matter) and who are living feeling emptyness in the soul and unbearable anguish oppressing the heart, those who are searching the way up and thirsting for healing. If you don't feel smth like that I'm not against you, I expess my view on the feeling of a religious person. I didn't want to hurt smb's feelings. For some obscure reason, many of the participants of the discussion think that I oppressed their views on life. I declare that there is nothing in it. When I say that a person goes to a doctor because he feels bad, it doesn't mean that those who don't feel bad have to justify themselves.
 
Such view on religion is rather simplified. That's not good. I'll try to explain it.

Thank you ever so much.

If you are not a follower of any religion, your look on this subject is defective. It's just like a new dish. You can see it, smell it, but you can't understand its flavour until you taste it.

If you had read my first post you would have noticed that I mentioned being fairly into religion for a while and having been thoroughly disappointed. I dare say I sat front and center at the buffet of Christianity for a few years and left the table starving.

I think you're the one who's missing an important point here. I would imagine that you were born into a faith and have followed that faith devoutly for most of your life. Many who are not religious actually started out as religious and were sorrily let down by your so-called 'way'. No one's judging you either, but you have to accept that your way is nothing more than that, it's your way. I think people who have a 'way', religious or otherwise, are often convinced that they have 'THE way', which is nonsense.

There is no THE way, there are as many ways as there are people on this planet, which is why religion is not necessary. If it were, there'd be more people turning towards it rather than away from it, but that is not the case these days. People are turning inward and to each other increasingly, and less so towards holy books and churches.
 
NB! Just a remark. Science relies not only on empirical evidence. For example geomentry is based on axioms which can't be proved empiricaly. And what do you think of how people learnt that the Earth revolves around the sun? Empirical evidence proved conrary view.
The evidence for the earth going around the sun is there in emprical evidence. The first time the idea was put forward was by Aristarchus of Samos (310-250 BC). What does help was the invention of the telescope, which confirmed it.

What did religion then do? Put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life for teaching things that were against church teaching. It took until 1992 for the catholic church to forgive him.

Something from the sadly missed Carl Sagan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for your help...

Okay guys, I have to thank you all for providing your opinions, they are much appreciated. Even though some went off topic, so please lets stay at topic. we are not discussing the atheism Vs theism or what is the purpose of life.
I have create a thread about the purpose of existence anyway in this section, you can discuss it there. So please lets stay in topic.

here is some comments or questions I have to some posts that I need more clarification about.

sorry, its hard to go through all posts and quote them here...it will take time which I dont have 😌

Manahaki Kaori:
Is going to church and follow specific regulations is what made you dont want to follow a specific religion?
or may be you dont like to be limited to specific religion?

Ma Cherice:

what is the concept of God in your opinion?
How do you think that God existence cant be involved in his creation?
*need more explanation please*


bakakanadajin:
so your view is that some religions have been used as tool in some places of earth? thats why you dont like to believe in any?...just wanna make sure

undrentide:
What are the other ways to reach God in your opinion?

peresvet:
so you think that it depend on the person itself and whether he really need to believe in God?...just wanna make sure

Clawn:
then you think that having a faith is not necessarily lead to worship?

Pachipro:
I think your view is that religions are the biggest lie, so is it because you think that each abrahamic religion think about their God differently than the other religions Gods?
you said that we dont need a religion to believe in God, but it seems that you dont believe in God in the first place, so, is there any specific power that you think its behind the creation of this world and you believe on it?


But in general I can conclude that most of you guys think that religions are ruling people in a way that they dont like, and many of you prefer to live their life on their own.
 
Many people prefer to believe in God without having following a specific religion, they prefer having their own way of life to support their belief of God
what do you think and why.....
I prefer to post this thread here instead of the Religions discussion group so everyone can participate
but, please.......no off topic posts

Believing in god is a religion. Now if you were to say that should religion tell you how to practice that belief then no. I think you should be able to believe the way you wish. However, I am not a believer. Just watch some of Richard Dawkins videos on Youtube. It will open your eyes.
 
Hime said:
Pachipro:
I think your view is that religions are the biggest lie, so is it because you think that each abrahamic religion think about their God differently than the other religions Gods?
A very difficult question Hime, but I hope I can articulate an answer.

All three major religions, Islamic, Judeism, and Christian all have Abraham in their teachings and claim that the God of Abraham is the same God. If that were the case then why all the fighting and killing and wars? Why is it that one religion is better and truer than the other two when it is the same God? I believe that it is all about control and power over the people and control of the land. In order to accomplish this, religious wars are started and the people are brainwashed to hate the other religions when in reality their basic faith is the same.

Is it any wonder why the Christians were thrown out of Japan and the nation isolated from the rest of the world for more than 200 years? It was because the Japanese discovered the true intentions of the Christians and their desire to control and dominate the world and Japan.

Almost every war since the dawn of man has been based on religion in one way or another. Even today, Jews are pitted against Christians and Islamics and vice versa and we are warned of Islamic terrorists who want to "kill all infidels" and take over the world. Maybe they do, but I believe we are only brainwashed into believing it and we are taught to hate them. Thus, "war for profit" continues to this day and only those pulling the puppet strings profit while the majority of people suffer. If wars were not for profit and there was no profit it pitting one religion against another then when has there ever been a period of true peace in this world in the last 6,000 years?

In the past it was the Christians who were the terrorists and then the Jews. Today it is the Islam nation. Why? Because that is what we are told and led to believe through false news stories from the press and our "leaders." Even within religions there is major fighting. Christians fight against other Christians, Jews fight with other Jews, and Islamics fight and kill other Islamics all because one feels theirs is the correct way of thinking when the truth is no one is correct.

I still believe that no, we do not need religion to believe in a God for if there was really a God, he would've showed himself long before today and put a stop to these insane religious wars and, as long as people act as sheeple and continue believing in their false leaders we will never, ever have peace in this world. Ever. And sheeple will continue believing in a false God because they are told to do so.

It's a sad situation for which there is no answer.
 
peresvet:
so you think that it depend on the person itself and whether he really need to believe in God?...just wanna make sure

Not exactly so. It is not so hard to believe in God. It's hard to be the follower of a religion, because believing doesn't require anything, you may live as you wish, do what you want and never think of changing yourself in order to approach perfection, to come nearer to God. Religion is the narrow way for those who doesn't satisfied with his/her life even if such life is successful.
 
Ma Cherice:
what is the concept of God in your opinion?
How do you think that God existence cant be involved in his creation?
*need more explanation please*

My concept of God is not some anthropomorphic being like he is in Abrahamic religions. For instance, to me God isn't someone who has emotions, God doesn't send prophets or messengers to humanity. My concept of God generally is from the Hindu perspective (I'm not Hindu by any means, but it's called Brahman) that God is merely energy/substance of the universe, a physical phenomenon.

Since God is merely a physical force in my view, there's no way he can be involved in his creation.
 
Since God is merely a physical force in my view, there's no way he can be involved in his creation.

God IS creation if we take it to be the sum of all experience and life, physical and otherwise. In a way God is quite involved; continually evolving and basically a function of itself. Perhaps not actively involved but certainly not separate. Without creation there would be no God per se, and vice versa. It's almost symbiotic. But a part of me still believes in some innately separate and ultimate portion that supecedes even the enormous sum of that which is contained in 'all of creation'. I suppose that's how I reconcile the existence of something before the big bang. God is like an empty pot, the contents are the Universe and everyone/thing in it. But empty the pot and it still exists, albeit.. an empty pot.

Even when loosely translated from the Abrahamic religions this seems to fit, since God is continually referred to there as love itself, as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Of course, Eastern traditions of one-ness, Nirvana, etc., would fit even more closely with this.

I'm not particular to any one religion as I said but the Eastern tradition seems to communicate this idea much more directly and clearly than the Abrahamic traditions wreathed in all their allegory, parable and so on.
 
God IS creation if we take it to be the sum of all experience and life, physical and otherwise. In a way God is quite involved; continually evolving and basically a function of itself. Perhaps not actively involved but certainly not separate. Without creation there would be no God per se, and vice versa. It's almost symbiotic. But a part of me still believes in some innately separate and ultimate portion that supecedes even the enormous sum of that which is contained in 'all of creation'. I suppose that's how I reconcile the existence of something before the big bang. God is like an empty pot, the contents are the Universe and everyone/thing in it. But empty the pot and it still exists, albeit.. an empty pot.

Even when loosely translated from the Abrahamic religions this seems to fit, since God is continually referred to there as love itself, as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Of course, Eastern traditions of one-ness, Nirvana, etc., would fit even more closely with this.

I'm not particular to any one religion as I said but the Eastern tradition seems to communicate this idea much more directly and clearly than the Abrahamic traditions wreathed in all their allegory, parable and so on.

Interesting response. When I have looked into Eastern religions, they do seem to take on this more impersonal view of God, whereas Abrahamic religions God is more personal. (Christianity is real big on having a personal relationship with God).
 
Back
Top Bottom