Do we need a religion to believe in God?

[Tokyo girl <3]

I don't even beilive in God to have a religion. I think those are really unnecessary things. There are not any proves that God even exists. Everything that exists are things around us and there is science. Why to lie ourself that there are some unnatrual powers and Gods which manage our lifes. Sorry if this post uspet you or offenced you, but that's my opinion.

 

[Adulado]

[deleted] .

 

[Jericho Desu]

I don't even beilive in God to have a religion. I think those are really unnecessary things. There are not any proves that God even exists. Everything that exists are things around us and there is science. Why to lie ourself that there are some unnatrual powers and Gods which manage our lifes. Sorry if this post uspet you or offenced you, but that's my opinion.

What I find funny is that some people wouldn't think that there was a higher power whose plan made it be that we would have science, even scientists know there is only a certain degree to which humans will understand, there are many things which we can never comprehend only think we do.

As for the main question no I don't think we need religion to believe in God, I myself am not affiliated with any particular type of religion because I don't believe in the word of man, I say that because even if there was a 'pure' religion based on teachings of some God, throughout the years those teachings could have easily been polluted by individuals using 'the word of God' as a means of power and persuasion.

But I do believe in a higher power and reason I say 'higher power' and not 'God' is because how can people be so sure its a single entity, it could be many entities or spirits, its not something we can be entirely sure of, we just say (or most of us) that there is 'one God' because thats what has been implemented into you from birth.

 

[Ukonkivi]

Belief in God is a spiritual decision I guess in this light.
Whereas Religion is seen as more of a group fellowship.

Still, Spirituality can also be said to be religion
You can be a Deist, a Pantheist, a Animist, a Shamanist, a Pandeist, a Panentheist, a Spiritist, and still be religious.
Just because you don't know the name for it, doesn't mean you're not religious

Some people even consider atheism a religion.

I consider myself to be a Shamanistic Pandeistic animistic Northern spirit following Nordic Pagan. And I do not consider myself to be without religion in the least.

 

[Tokyo girl <3]

Well, I don't consider atheism for religion because if you are atheist you don't beilive in anything, and religion is when you beilive in something!

@Jericho Desu - What did you want to say with that post? I didn't understand very well. Can you explane, please?

 

[Manahaki_Kaori]

I don't even beilive in God to have a religion. I think those are really unnecessary things. There are not any proves that God even exists. Everything that exists are things around us and there is science. Why to lie ourself that there are some unnatrual powers and Gods which manage our lifes. Sorry if this post uspet you or offenced you, but that's my opinion.

Well, then who created Science? Something just can't appear out of nowhere, something or someone has to create it. And no, the post didn't offend me, it's your opinion and people are allowed to have opinions.

I'm just giving my piece.

...Yeah, I'll shut up now.

 

[Ma Cherie]

Well, I don't consider atheism for religion because if you are atheist you don't beilive in anything, and religion is when you beilive in something!

It's not a matter of atheist not believing in anything, it's about a lack of belief. I'm sure many atheists believe in lots of things, believing in deities just isn't one of them.

Also you don't have to follow a religion to believe in something, I'm not an atheist nor do I believe in religion. That also doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.

Well, then who created Science? Something just can't appear out of nowhere, something or someone has to create it. And no, the post didn't offend me, it's your opinion and people are allowed to have opinions.

I'm just giving my piece.

...Yeah, I'll shut up now.

Well, if there is a creator then who created the creator?

 

[bakaKanadajin]

That is mean to betray my own belief. It's a pity that you'll never understand it. Actually it was you who began to attack me. I only expressed my opinion and suggested discussing it. Whose feelings were hurt by me? According to following it was only your feelings. But you don't seem vulnerable. So I have the right to consider it a provocation. Having nothing to say ad rem you began to attack me. You labeled me as a religious fanatics and tried to humble me. You also demonstrated inability to hear the arguments of the opponent. So, not me, but you demonstrated bigotry and fanaticism.
Who is interested in the dialogue you began? Nobody is, except you. What are you continuing it for? To satisfy you own ambitions? Sorry, but it's not good and I'm not interested in taking part in such discussion. Go on with your self admiration but... without me.

Agree to disagree.
Just keep in mind the minute you declare one religious ideal as superior to another you will have others like me claiming bigotry.My point of view is neither rare nor specialﾂ。

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

When people say God as a proper noun, they seem to always refer to the god of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. I think to believe in that god, religion is probably necessary, although one does not necessarily have to belong to a specific church.

To believe in a god without religion is perfectly possible. It depends on the god that you believe in and how demanding it is.

I find the opposite question to be much more interesting, though. Can one have a religion without a god?

 

[Malamis]

I find the opposite question to be much more interesting, though. Can one have a religion without a god?

... Scientology?

I think Confucianism would fall under that banner too, although it may well have been so subsumed into national character as to be indistinct.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

... Scientology?
I think Confucianism would fall under that banner too.

Don't forget Buddhism as originally taught.

 

[Adulado]

The question is which institution is established according to the Bible? Why Catholics worship idols (saints) although in the Bible says don't worship idols, also why priests don't marry although in the Bible don't say that priests shouldn't marry? Also the Bible says: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -Revelation 22:18~19-

Well, if there is a creator then who created the creator?

No one, if not God wouldn't be God, right? Creator is not creature.

 

[Adulado]

I don't even beilive in God to have a religion. I think those are really unnecessary things. There are not any proves that God even exists. Everything that exists are things around us and there is science. Why to lie ourself that there are some unnatrual powers and Gods which manage our lifes. Sorry if this post uspet you or offenced you, but that's my opinion.

The injustice around us makes me believe there's a God. If not of what use then are the morals, ethic, values? Also scientists should realize that to prove whether God exists or not their individual lives are too short then it'll be too late when their death is near. Also the more they try to prove the more they realize the existence of God unless they are in willful/forceful denial. In my opinion, we have all the evidences we need around us, also experience, reasoning...

 

[Manahaki_Kaori]

Well, if there is a creator then who created the creator?

I'm not prone to be 'religious' or anything, but I was brought up on this idea. This is what the LDS church has taught us when we had a question similar to that. Who created God?

My teachers taught us about something called the Plan of Salvation, whereas we lived with God before we came to this earth, and so on and so on. They believe that God went through the same test we were and was once human. Now, I don't know how to believe that, or even if it really happened.

Then again, that's just what was the idea I was brought up on.

 

[Malamis]

Don't forget Buddhism as originally taught.

If you would elaborate on that, wikitypedia ( or my -fu of it) is limited and my understanding of modern teaching is the pursuit of transcendence or personal apotheosis.

 

[Ma Cherie]

The injustice around us makes me believe there's a God. If not of what use then are the morals, ethic, values? Also scientists should realize that to prove whether God exists or not their individual lives are too short then it'll be too late when their death is near. Also the more they try to prove the more they realize the existence of God unless they are in willful/forceful denial. In my opinion, we have all the evidences we need around us, also experience, reasoning...

Why do religious people use that argument? "If there is no God, then what's the point of having morals and values?"

To me, I think the question should be, what's the point of having a religion if you're not going to follow the morals that religion teaches?

Who said you have to believe in God in order to have morals and values?
Also, what about the immoral things that have been done in the name of God and religion? Why is that many non-religious have better morals and values than many religious people?

No one, if not God wouldn't be God, right? Creator is not creature

Then what is God?

 

[Mycernius]

No one, if not God wouldn't be God, right? Creator is not creature

Then what is God?

You'll never get a straight answer from a theist on that question, believe me. It is a typical answer. I'm surprised the phrase "God is beyond us" hasn't been used yet. I seen it on atheist forums and christian forums.

 

[Malamis]

You'll never get a straight answer from a theist on that question, believe me. It is a typical answer. I'm surprised the phrase "God is beyond us" hasn't been used yet. I seen it on atheist forums and christian forums.

My personal favorite is "The I AM" from which all else is but type, shadow and expression , but its pretty much a dramatic rehash of the one you just said. Another good one I've heard was the Architect of Fate, and the Engineer of Time, used to describe the supra cosmic system's maintenance engineer and designer. Finally, tradition points to some variant of the Chinese concept of "The Emperor Above"; some grand necessary bureaucrat required for the correct functioning of (classical) society and nature from whom all governmental and political authority is ultimately derived. Naturally, it then became convenient to self perpetuate and moderate the belief, regardless of any truth or pantomime in the original.
Me, I'll stick to the first one

 

[Ma Cherie]

You'll never get a straight answer from a theist on that question, believe me. It is a typical answer. I'm surprised the phrase "God is beyond us" hasn't been used yet. I seen it on atheist forums and christian forums.

You're probably right. Sometimes I don't know why I bother with these types of questions.

I've been on this Christian forum for awhile now, and I've seen this as well. I can only hope that people would at least think about their beliefs.

 

[Adulado]

To me, I think the question should be, what's the point of having a religion if you're not going to follow the morals that religion teaches?

Most don't, actually many unworthy people are going to church and occupying positions of prestige, leaders preach falsely or for money. That's why in the Bible teaches:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. It is written," he said to them, 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[a] but you are making it a 'den of robbers" -Matthew 21:12~13-

"Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days. The Jews replied, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body." -John 2:19~21-

Because He saw what was going on inside the church.

Who said you have to believe in God in order to have morals and values?

You don't because personal righteousness doesn't justify anyone.

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." -Galatians 2:16-

Also, what about the immoral things that have been done in the name of God and religion? Why is that many non-religious have better morals and values than many religious people?

No one do immoral things in God's name unless he/she's a disgrace or misinterpreting things.

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." -Exodus 20:7-

Then what is God?

The Creator?

"He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." -2 Thessalonians 2:14-

Also don't confuse true Christians with Christians by label only who merely go to church.

 

[Ma Cherie]

The Creator?

"He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." -2 Thessalonians 2:14-

Also don't confuse true Christians with Christians by label only who merely go to church.

What makes you think I did? ☝

Also, those scriptures you posted don't really answer my question.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

If you would elaborate on that, wikitypedia ( or my -fu of it) is limited and my understanding of modern teaching is the pursuit of transcendence or personal apotheosis.

The Buddha, who was merely a man and never claimed to be more, never took a position on the possible existance of a god or gods. He merely claimed to have discovered a path to true enlightment. What he meant by true enlightenment was an escape from the 'circle of life'.

Disney put the circle of life in positive terms in 'The Lion King', but the Buddha thought quite differently. He saw life as nothing but suffering from the moment of birth to the moment of death. However, according to his theory of being, the components which comprise us reassemble again after our deaths in an endless loop.

Enlightenment is the way to escape this loop and cease to exist upon death, thereby freeing yourself from the infinite suffering inherent in existing.

That's my nickel explanation, anyway. The Buddha offers no creator, nor any object or entity to be worshipped.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

When people think of God there's a tendency to make him/her/it into a kind of entity, something that exists in some shape or form somewhere, a thing which although not anthropomorphic or with personality, still retains enough substance to warrant the kind of existence which is subject to questions like 'what came before Him, can he destroy Himself, if He wasn't around then...."

What if God simply was a function of existence, a result. Is a cell alive? Yes. Is a cell intelligent? Yes it's intelligent life, it seeks to procreate, subsist and defend itself. Does it know its part of a human body? No. Is it aware that the body it lives in exists? No. Does the body need the cell and vice versa? Yes.

We know a human is born but take it from the cell's point of view: It is only through the union and existence of a number of cells that that body exists. The mass of cells known as the body could be as easily defined in that way; a necessary and resultant function stemming from a congregation of cells; as it could be defined the opposite way (a body which is comprised of cells).

That's a crude example which is not definitive and is of course wrought with many holes and what-if's, but that's the kind of general concept I'm trying to get at. If we are the cell, a God like that is 1) beyond our ability to define 2) beyond our ability to understand or directly interact with 3) linked directly to us and also links us to one another 4) contains everything we'll ever know and that has ever been etc etc etc. There are many parallels one could draw.

Now, the body exists, it could die, if it dies we die, where did the body come from, etc etc. Well those questions are valid. Again, its a crude example as i said, one that puts the cell and body both on the physical plane and its also an example that uses two finite objects in the tangible physical sense. When I think of the above concept I don't envision the individual and the God being so closely linked in physical matter.

There are many other areas where the true definition and concept could reside. Remember, energy cannot be destroyed, it just changes forms. If God is anything we can understand, at the very least God is most likely synonymous with all energy that is. Also keep in mind that there are more dimensions than the one we currently occupy. I mean there are so many levels above us where things could happen, laws and energies and universals not yet revealed or learned, things that don't even reside in our lexicon of definition or comprehension, things that we simply might not be capable of comprehending PERIOD. It's no wonder we can't put a definition on it.

 

[Mycernius]

Adulado, quoting from scripture is hardly proof of gods, ethics and morals. It can be applied to any religious scripture.
If you wish to analyse morals then look at The infamous Standford Prison experiment and also Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment. The obedience experiment had another experiment that ran about the same time involving monkeys in Chicago. They took monkeys and put a chain in there to receive food, except when the chain was pulled its neighbour would recieve a shock. A majority of monkeys refused to eat rather than see its neighbour suffer pain, some as long as 12 days. It seems that rhesus monkeys have a better moral code than most humans. And guess what, they don't have a book telling them to be good.
see:
Milgrams obedience experiment
Stanley Milgram Obedience to Authority - experiments, study 1974
The standford Prison experiment:
Stanford Prison Experiment
The paper for the Rhesus monkey research is "Altruistic Behaviour in Rhesus Monkeys" by Masserman, J.H; Wechkin, S; and Terris, W.

 

[Adulado]

To show that monkeys too have conscience like human beings? That proves my point.