I think there is a problem focusing on God only as the Eternal Punisher, the Watcher of Bad Deeds... The He Who Requires our Worship. In a great sense as humans our focus determines our reality. Those who tend to focus on God the provider, the loving Father, and Creator of butterflies and belly buttons... have far less trouble believing that He exists.
I am an agnostic. I used to be an atheist but have convinced myself that there is no way I can disprove the existence of an all powerful "creator" (this term being used very loosely). However, I tend to shy away from the God as described in the Bible. I can't conceive of an omniscient, all loving being who would make us flawed and then punish us for his own mistake. Call it a test, a challenge, or whatever you like. I see it as a God sitting on an ant hill with a magnifying glass throwing water on us and seeing which ones will squirm to survive. Maybe man has simply perverted the Bible over the years, who knows.
There are many reasons why I am an agnostic. Firstly, my father is not a Christian and although he has never told me what he believes in, I get from his views he is also an agnostic. My mother is a non-practicing Buddhist. So really, growing up I didn't have much religion in my life. Secondly, I am very interested in the sciences and physics. These fields tend to be very logic based and full of rationale and reasoning. That type of thinking makes me turn away from the "leap of faith" most Christians make. The sciences have also showed me very logical explanations for the way the world and our universe works and, very honestly speaking, disproves the Bible.
One of my friends once told me this, "I don't get atheists; why not just believe in God and if you're right, you go to Heaven and if not, nothing happens anyways." That certainly is a good point. However, even if I labeled myself as a Christian, I wouldn't truly be a Christian, and I'm certain the omniscient God would know this and deny me from Heaven to an eternity in Hell.
A great scientist named Carl Sagan once said, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
This video just reaffirms my belief that the Bible is flawed and reminds me why I'm an agnostic. The quote by Carl Sagan above can be found at the end of the video.
Yes, I'm surprised at all this anger and thinking of God in terms of an angry punisher. I don't think of God that way at all. Maybe some egos are getting in the way of discussing this without anger.....?
Posted by Scorpion da black:
this life is a test..a short period of time...that will pass as a glimpse..real life awaits after judgment day..
what we are ordered to do in this short life is make earth a better place and be obey the code and morals the Lord put for us.
This video just reaffirms my belief that the Bible is flawed and reminds me why I'm an agnostic. The quote by Carl Sagan above can be found at the end of the video.
Since I have been near death several times, I do not fear this at all.
And I do not believe in god as an overfather, particularly not just a man, that also would be only part of everything anyhow, as a simple logic can tell. Its either everything or its not god, if a he claims to be everything.
Something thats clearly missing a part cannot be all of it, as simple as that.
And being very aware of the and of knowledge of some former than bible interpretaions, thus the bible itself is a made up in many ways, I have my views on comparing the metamorphoses of all views and love further upcoming surprises in that field.
I do not mind though, if some mean the same, by calling any nearest AND farthest "power" or/and emptiness god or godmade, but tend to "translate".
For me, certain scientific explanations are extremely fitting as well, I have a certain fun in comparing even those with old experiences, be them called religious or not. It works far more often, than one thinks at first and can inspire each other even.
Its a constant guess, this life, if one question is solved, the next one comes up, and thats what keeps us going.
I therefor love the way, some eastern people love guessing games, by the way.
Well, I am an artist mainly, looking for new expressions about old themes in a way, or as well old expressions of so-called new themes.
I'm purely materialistic, and simply don't believe in any sort of ethereal forces. It seems difficult to believe that our limited senses can pick up ethereal stuff when much more advanced technology registers nothing, and it seems that choices on which religion is correct are purely based on intuition, and intuition can be entirely wrong.
I see more hope in the self-correcting sciences and the ability of humanity to improve the general whole than in any of the religious-belief systems.
I think there is a problem focusing on God only as the Eternal Punisher, the Watcher of Bad Deeds... The He Who Requires our Worship. In a great sense as humans our focus determines our reality. Those who tend to focus on God the provider, the loving Father, and Creator of butterflies and belly buttons... have far less trouble believing that He exists.
Actually it was this positive focus that initially led me to conclude that god does not exist. As you already know Sabro, I was looking around for meaning, had toyed with various religions and found no satisfying answer. When I focus on those things that inspire awe in me I do find a satisfying answer - and that answer only fills me with further awe.
When I see a rainbow, I know why it's there. It's there because sunlight is shining through a raindrop at an angle of 42 degrees, when I have the rain in front of me and the sun behind. It's there because different colours of light refract at different angles, so that white light is split into the seven colours of the rainbow. For me, no explanation is needed beyond that. I just find it amazingly awe-inspiring that light randomly bouncing around in random raindrops could produce something so beautiful, and that an insignificant being like me can be in the right place to witness it. When I realised that, I realised I had no need for god.
I was brought up a Christian, but my parents weren't particularly devout, we didn't go to church. Eventually after talking to a lot of people I kinda decided it had nothing to do with me. That said my atheism is 100% about reasoning now. If someone gave me a pretty good argument for the existance of a god I'd consider becoming agnostic (become unsure).
I don't believe in things that don't have evidence. Making it specific by saying 'believe/don't believe in God/Jesus/whatever' is just appealing to the emotions.
However, I'm really humanistic. If people consider religion important then I'm always interested in talking and hearing about it. Please explain to me why you can believe in something with no evidence.
Best wishes. Let's not become rude. Religion or not, all that matters is to be nice.
Although we can explain the physics behind a rainbow, the point is that people, even those who have a good understanding of how it is done, can still be in awe of it. That sense of awe, that appreciation... the joyful indulgence in beauty.... the connection between an insignificant being like us to the eternal, simply by being in the right place speaks volumes about God. It isn't the mechanics of the miracle, it is the content of the message.
When you find a small note of appreciation from a loved one hidden in your purse or stuck to the bathroom mirror it isn't the grammar or handwriting that evokes emotion... it isn't the paper or how he managed to sneak it in...it is the thought that counts... it isn't the mechanics of the note it is the content of the message.
To the purely scientific end though, I have no proof... nothing material- measurable- observable objectively. I have subjective proof... personal observations beyond any doubt ... And to admit that every day is more confirmation is purely based on my bias and my interpretation of the data. Greater minds like DesCartes, CS Lewis, and Chesterton have given logical "proofs" of God.... there are dozens of contemporary and modern proofs as well... but I'm stuck with this fairly dogmatic "cogito ergo sum" jump off point...you begin with foundational assumptions. God was not one that I started with, but one that made all the other things fit. I found myself doubting the entire dialectical materialistic universe and believing, no matter how hard I tried to supress it, in the existence of an eternal and benevolent God.
Although we can explain the physics behind a rainbow, the point is that people, even those who have a good understanding of how it is done, can still be in awe of it.
I remember reading once that the sun, clouds and atmosphere make up a sunset, but that God is the beauty of the sunset. (I don't know if I explained that as well as what was written originally.)
Posted by Tsuyoiko:
When I see a rainbow, I know why it's there. It's there because sunlight is shining through a raindrop at an angle of 42 degrees...
Sorry to jump in here, but I don't think the lack of knowing why we are here translates to there being a god. I could tell you why the rainbow is there, but what I think you are asking is why is the universe here. Science doesn't answer the why, it answers the how. Not knowing why something exists or why we were "put" here on Earth does not necessarily provide evidence for a god. Think about it this way.
When man was first beginning to ask those "why" questions, there was no way he could explain why. Man could not explain why we had winter and summer, or why there is a sun and moon, and so on. Therefore, man created gods, myths, and fairy tales to explain these natural phenomena. The Greeks believed winter is caused by Hades kidnapping Persephone, causing the seasons to change. Many years later using scientific observations man was able to disprove this myth and conclude that the seasons change as a result of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Out of necessity man creates God. Not knowing these fundamental why questions just shows our lack of knowledge, not the existence of God. It just needs more time to go deeper and figure out the mysteries, just like how science figured out the changing seasons, planets, and stars. "We don't know why this works, therefore it must be God," just shows the leap of faith most Christians or any religious person makes. I'm certainly not trying to insult or belittle Christianity by comparing it with the ancient myths and fairy tales. I'm just trying to point out that the logic of "I don't know why so it must be God," does not necessarily work.
I'm sorry for digressing like this. I know this thread was created to just convey what religion we belong to (or lack of) and why. However, I think the above represents another reason why I am agnostic. Perhaps we should split the thread? I leave it to the OP. I'm sure having a religious discussion thread could work, there are plenty of mature people here.
Actually, Half-N-Half, I think your comments are on topic with this thread. You're explaining why you wouldn't believe in God.
I think in my questions above I meant mainly to start a trend of looking at the whole - as you said, universe - and to question why we're all here. Yes, it's implied that God is the reason, and that's what I believe, but I think it's also important for each person to question things themselves. I didn't mean to imply a specific answer.
RC Sproul in his book Not a Chance advances the evidence available to prove the existence of God is not only adequate enough to be convincing, but that it forms a prima facia case when used to establish a causality link in what might be termed the Cosmological Argument... much of what we have hinted about here.
I suppose I could wade back through it and give the highlights of the argument...
Tsuyoiko,
in a way you answered your own question about why the beauty of the rainbow could be god. Its the uplifted and "high" feeling, that we get from this, and if you follow the places for being "holy", often equal to be inherited by a Kami too in Japan, then its such places, that tickle your awe, make you feel "high", or simply electrified or the like.
Since of course, people naturally love to get this feeling, they adore whatever gives it to them. If something touches us by sheer brilliance, that wakes this up, we as well say "divine".
Thus any "holy" place is establishing a way to either see/get this feeling, or at least make us able to perform something to get it. We are simply addicts in a way, and as such can also easily be mislead and misused, by the fear of being disconnected from this feeling, if doing something "against god", who and whatever this is.
In reality, we are completely independant of such "religious" manipulations and can have this awe any time we wish and for free without fear for any punishment at all. Its our birthright and free gift, so to say.
Thus we can very well dance free, if we only try to let go of any lead or fear. This awe is everywhere available, for everyone.
Its alrigth, to use any available way then, and I personally see no harm in attenting group sessions either, but they would not make me addicted to their way as an only one, nor ever even get the idea of blaming anyone for not using this supposedly "only" way.
I love the variety of "divine" experiences, so why sticking to only one god??
mycerenius san
i wasn't saying that religion is the only way to happiness..and i wasn't saying that no one will find a goal or a reason to live if it wasn't for religion..i wasn't even judging people for following this faith or that..
i was just stating my philosophy on why i choose to believe in God..
any one is welcome to read more about that philosophy and embrace it..and any one is welcome to criticize it and choose not to believe in it and search for other means of happiness.
as for me i am happy with the faith i have it gives me tranquility...i am glad you found what makes you happy as well...no one has the right to judge you as bad or good...
i was just stating a school of thought that i happened to embrace.
sarapva san quoted a really nice part of my post..that would be my goal after my post ...thank you
I am an agnostic. I believe that there is no evidence for or against the existence of God. When asked, I usually respond "I don't know". I grew up with no religion, but was and still am surrounded by a variety of religions. As a child I always considered myself a non-denominational christian. I believed in God, believed in Jesus, and prayed when I felt that I needed guidance. Although, even as a child, I have always questioned why I believed and wondered when I would see the evidence for God. I also struggled, as a child, with the always fun question "Who created God and who created that God?" and so on. So I believe that I have always had a "skeptical" way of thinking. As I hit my late teens, 18 or so, I really started to become intrigued with theological and philosophical thinking. I did my own personal research on any religion that I could think of. I came to the conclusion that religion is only suitable for some people. Me not being one of those people. I would also listen to the pointless debates among atheists and the religious, and concluded that the atheists had the stronger argument. So always having a skeptical mind and "religiously" following the scientific method, due to my scientific aspirations, I found myself within the agnostic community. I do however find myself in prayer, but it's usually when my Giants are playing. I'll need it on Feb.3!
The above points, I will strongly argue, have not been given the proper and substantial weight they deserve--in the larger degree. Is this due to a tendency to short-circuit the thinking process, in order to arrive at a more emotionally satisfiying conclusive-like statement or claim? I wonder. . .
Now, as always, (and may my words again act as a needle that (spelled) P-R-I-cks that thinking box inside the prefrontal cortex) far too little notice has been given definitions and parameters of terms here--this makes for a large part of the problem incurred when discussion this particular subject.
Now, please go back to the OP and catch the usage of the word 'god.' Careful consideration will reach the conclusion that this term was given so as to (purposely or not) provide us with two parameters--one being a countable noun, and the other being an uncountable noun. This is a fact of the language used.
What that would mean, then, is that in making statements or claims about or relative to any concept of 'god,' we should take care to disclose which one we are using in any statement or claim, at a particular time. I think most have, so far, in their own posts, but may have inadvertently projected their own conceptualized image, to various degrees, onto those of others. This produces an error.
If you were to look over the statements and claims carefully, and think in an analytical mode for a while, you will again find that we are talking about god-models. Almost each person who has shared their belief or non-belief in god, or a god (and this word is NOT a proper noun historically, and ought not be used as such either) has done so by drawing out a model--for example:
an all loving, all powerful "God"
Growing up, my family talked of and believed in "God"
"God" as was taught by my Catholic upbringing
God (the guy above....)
the god that Christianity teaches① a "God" who is . . . personal...posses the elements of a person
"God" is an energy
a "Lord" who sides with his faithful servants...who obey the code and morals he gave us
"God" the eternal punisher...watcher of bad deeds "God" as describe in the Bible (bold mine for later connection) god as an overfather
Go a little further, and it's extremely clear that at least 90% of the above concepts are primarily rooted in the Judaic belief-system. This is a matter that over and over again, far too many people fail to take into proper consideration, and it is one reason for miscomunication and the related bottle-necks that result from it. I truely hope all will join me in my efforts to be more precise and clear with these terms and definitions, PLEASE !!
As I am presently showing, ever so slowly, putting puzzle piece by puzzle piece together on the thread entitled 'What Do You Think About the Bible,' I have found far greater external② evidence for the understanding that the Judaic god-model is a human creation, and that the Christian god-model, therefore, is a human creation, and that by extension, the Islamic god-model is a human creation.
In the very same way and manner, I have (and am still in studying process, basically) found the Hindu god models, the present day Higher Wheel Buddhist god-model (at least), the Shinto god model, the Mayan god-model, the Phonecian, Greek, Roman god models, and the animistic god-models (among many other variations of these) to be of human creation.
Upon inspection, it becomes clear enough--over and against, even, any emotional striving for priority--that most likely (notice the averaging weight here...I am NOT speaking in absolutes) it is the human brain which has associated natural matters, in the absence of impirical knowledge and the test of time, into a concept which has been labeled god, or deity, in English.
THEREFORE I believe in god as a word which is attached to a human concept. I have investigated and reasoned that the various models which offer capacity for that word's (god) being plugged into them, have no referent in the universe in which we live, beyond internal existence (that is, within the brain of the individual). I am thus non-theist agnostic.
① If you were to check that again, Tokis chan, I think you'll find a major logic error there--of course it was just a slip, and I know what you had wanted to say, namely, that you didn't believe in the Christian god-model, rather than having said that you didn't believe in the Christian god which does exist. (thereby admitting that that god actually exists, but that you didn't believe in it);
② Here, without going into epistemological treatises, I am referring to the more objective outside world, as opposed to the usually more subjective creation of the outside world that is only within an individual's brain (in those cases where direct observation and evidences can not be duplicated in tests outside that particular brain without having firstly relied on any precluded database--say the Bible, for the Christian, for example. {see Uncle Frank's post and consider})
In response to Mars Man's post, I would like to clarify my posts. I purposely used "god" (lower case) to refer to the general sense of the word. I also therefore used "God" (capitalized) to refer to the Christian God. Hope it helps .
In order to argue for the existence of God, I would have to borrow one... there are several good tacts with solid evidence. Forensically however I could also argue the other point of view with about the same weight. So I am not certain that it is worth the effort.
What convinces me absolutely of the existence is God is pretty subjective and probably of little forensic value.
I understand. That (arguing the existence of a certain referent for the word 'god') would indeed open the can of worms that karlyboo quickly took note of in his #1 (and very first non-OP post).
I would suggest that we leave such for another time and place, however, and allow this thread to function as the 'show and tell'-like format that it opens with. I do intend, however, to soon present my 'having-been-slowly-cooking-up-on-the-back-burner' Serious Discussions Debate Activity, and that may well be the place and time for it.
Of course, such a thread would be very welcome here in our present Serious Discussion sub-forum, as well, but the 'debate activity' concept will handle things in a more controlled fashion, and that will surely (unless I have rather miscalculated) keep things a bit smoother. I'll announce that fairly soon.
ps...looks like you are staying up late again tonight, sabro san !
In general, I think the modern Christian god has turned into less of a 'god' and more of a fairytale. This is the problem I have with the religion in which I was raised and why I no longer believe in God as many people claim to know of.
The bible has been so changed and warped over the years it's impossible to know what's what. For example: in the early form of Christianity, Lucifer and Satan were two different people and neither was considered to be the great adversary to God at first. But, over the years it changed and these changes are accepted by many people as truth without question. And this is a religion that claims their words and teachings to be law.
In addition to that, the bible is contradictory, I think someone on this forum actually pointed this out but the bible says to 'turn the other cheek' and 'and eye for an eye', pretty much in the same breath. This supposed 'holy book' doesn't seem to know whether it's coming or going.
I could say the same thing about the Islamic holy book that claims you will get 72 virgins in heaven yet many people argue that this is a mistranslation and it actually translates to 'white grapes' which was considered a delicacy at the time. So if I follow Islam which and I going to get in Paradise: virgins or grapes? To be honest, if I play my cards right here in Earth, I can get virgins AND grapes at the same time, imagine that. And, if I feel like shelling out the money, I can even get my very own harp XD
You just can't trust these religions because they are all so skewed, both with time and the various mis-translations and interpretations. It all seems to much like some sort of lottery. Pick a number and if your lucky and live just right you win the grand prize: a one way trip to heaven.
So, no, I don't believe in God or the bible as it is known today.
Having said that, I'm not an atheist or agnostic. I have my own set of spiritual beliefs, I do believe in an afterlife and reincarnation, and I believe in a being(s) or spirit of great power but I don't believe this being is either all-powerful or gives a damn about the affairs of humans.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
