Do you believe in God?

zimmermania

Spirits must be shy,they never show themselves in brightly lit areas.

Rural electrification made a lot of them redundant,i am prepared to be a believer myself when i see a handful of spirits,ghosts or whatever they call themselves make an appearance in the city streets or the centre of any town at lunchtime on a saturday afternoon.

BeerWolf

The likelihood of us being created by aliens is more plausible than some omnipotent being.

So no, I don't believe in God.

But maybe God was an alien? :pac:

The Nal

Its an absolutely mental thing to believe in given the lack of evidence. People only believe in God because they were conditioned to do so from birth.

Alecto

Nope. No belief here.

Raconteuse

I believe that there could be *something* beyond this dimension all right - just not in the form that we are taught. And I certainly don't believe it's loving - that would be to imbue it with human traits.

No issue with people being religious though - it does bring hope and a sense of community. No issue with people being atheists either though (because obviously they're not all sneery bastards). Once they don't give other people hassle for not agreeing with them (and obviously both religious and atheist folk can be capable of this) respect their right to have a belief system or lack thereof.

Mortelaro

To me,this life is challenge one
Everyone in the challenge has a different challenge,some a lot tougher than others
Challenge 2 when we pass on
That's a philosophy
This universe is simply too incredible to rule out absolutely anything

Whether you want to believe in God being in charge of the challenges is up to you
I understand clubs and societies called religions are available with various man made rules to facilitate that
You do not in my opinion have to join these or follow their rules but you can visit from time to time,if you believe in God and worship
None of this is a biggy

BeerWolf

Mortelaro wrote: »

To me,this life is challenge one
Everyone in the challenge has a different challenge,some a lot tougher than others
Challenge 2 when we pass on
That's a philosophy
This universe is simply too incredible to rule out absolutely anything

An interesting concept;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI

nozzferrahhtoo

Mortelaro wrote: »

Whether you want to believe in God being in charge of the challenges is up to you

It is not "up to me" at all. I can not choose belief or switch it on and off at will. The idea other people can.... is fascinating to me. What is that even like?

I need substantiation to believe anything. No substantiation no belief is possible. Lots of substantiation and I can not NOT believe.

The idea there is a god is not just poorly but ENTIRELY Unsubstantiated at this time. My lack of belief in one therefore is nothing to do with personal choice. I am simply not capable of believing it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Raconteuse wrote: »

I certainly don't believe it's loving - that would be to imbue it with human traits.

Would an all powerful god even be capable of some human traits? Grief for example.

In the song "Common People" the girl was said not to really understand the plight of the poor and was just a "tourist". Because when it got too much she could call daddy and end it.

Similarly an all powerful god could simply end grief and is nothing but a "tourist" to such human experience. And people WORSHIP such a limited being?

Raconteuse wrote: »

Once they don't give other people hassle for not agreeing with them (and obviously both religious and atheist folk can be capable of this) respect their right to have a belief system or lack thereof.

Reminds me once again of this oft cited cartoon

olestoepoke

Which one? Religious people are atheists. How many different religions are there? How many gods are there? If you believe in one god and disregard all the others then you are also an atheist.

s7ryf3925pivug

olestoepoke wrote: »

Which one? Religious people are atheists. How many different religions are there? How many gods are there? If you believe in one god and disregard all the others then you are also an atheist.

That's not what atheist means.

olestoepoke

Sawyer Hissing Romance wrote: »

That's not what atheist means.

Yes I know that but the point I'm trying to make that the difference between lets say a practicing catholic and an atheist is that the atheist does not believe in one extra god than the religious person. Of the 1,000 or so gods that we have the religious person does not believe in 999 of them and the atheist does not believe in 1,000 of them.

Church on Tuesday

I'd like to think there is some higher power and that there is some kind of afterlife.

Most prob wishful thinking though.

Raconteuse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Would an all powerful god even be capable of some human traits? Grief for example.

In the song "Common People" the girl was said not to really understand the plight of the poor and was just a "tourist". Because when it got too much she could call daddy and end it.

Similarly an all powerful god could simply end grief and is nothing but a "tourist" to such human experience. And people WORSHIP such a limited being?

What are you asking me for?

Reminds me once again of this oft cited cartoon

Well no because I'm not badmouthing atheists (defending them actually from the "atheists are so smug" brigade) so I don't see how.

"Respect people's right to be religious" does not mean "respect what they believe".

nozzferrahhtoo

Raconteuse wrote: »

What are you asking me for?

It was rhetorical rather than a direct question. You spoke of how we imbue our god concepts with human traits. And I was just building on that line of thought. This is a discussion and debate forum. I was targeting the former more than the latter here

Raconteuse wrote: »

"Respect people's right to be religious" does not mean "respect what they believe".

I think that says it better, yes. I myself phrase it often as "Respect people, not their ideas" which I think captures it well. I think it was Johann Hari who was credited with saying "I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs" which I think also captures it quite beautifully.

Mortelaro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not "up to me" at all. I can not choose belief or switch it on and off at will. The idea other people can.... is fascinating to me. What is that even like?

I need substantiation to believe anything. No substantiation no belief is possible. Lots of substantiation and I can not NOT believe.

You're over analysing my post
You've chosen not to believe
Its self evident (to me anyway) that if you don't believe, you cannot choose to believe
It's only a choice to believe in anything if you believe
So in a way I see your point but am not affected by it personally

The idea there is a god is not just poorly but ENTIRELY Unsubstantiated at this time. My lack of belief in one therefore is nothing to do with personal choice. I am simply not capable of believing it.

That is in a nutshell the one way street choice that comes with the question
I note that you've said 'at this time'
For me what I don't know 'at this time' ,I choose not to rule the unknown out
Hence my challenges philosophy
To each their own as they say

nozzferrahhtoo

Mortelaro wrote: »

You're over analysing my post
You've chosen not to believe

Again no, I have not. The problem being therefore not that I have over analysed my post, but that you have under analysed mine by simply ignoring it and deciding your own reality for yourself. Or in this case deciding MINE for yourself. As my comment was only about my reality, not yours.

Again, I am not able to choose my beliefs. I am COMPELLED to belief by evidence. I am precluded belief by lack of it. This is not my choice. I no more control it than I control the digestive processes of my food after I eat it. I can not more choose to believe, or not believe, in a god than I can use the power of my mind to tell my stomach to digest the sugars and not the carbs. I simply. Can. Not. Do. It.

Mortelaro wrote: »

So in a way I see your point but am not affected by it personally

You were not meant to be I was merely pointing out that this idea that we "choose" to believe might be true for some people, but it is also not at all true for others.

It is fascinating for me of course, as someone who can not do it. I often wonder how labile your credulity is. For example can you look at a patently empty box and simply CHOOSE to believe it to be full of money? Amazing ability if you can. Can you simply choose to believe Angelina Jolie is in love with you, even if she has never met you, and then actually believe it? I can not. It is really fascinating if others can.

Mortelaro wrote: »

I note that you've said 'at this time'
For me what I don't know 'at this time' ,I choose not to rule the unknown out

Me too, which is why I have also not ruled anything out. Our data set of evidence is a constantly changing thing in all areas of our lives. Science for example gets an update to its total data set almost daily and what we have no reason to think true today, we might tomorrow.

I can only comment on the data set I have NOW. Not yesterday. Not tomorrow. Just NOW. And NOW the sum total of all the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning I am aware of for the existence of a god is.... you guessed it..... zero. Nadda. Zilch. Diddly. Squat. Nichts. Nothing. Bugger all. Zip.

Realtai

Agnostic here. I just don't know if there is something after this life. I think a part of me, wants to believe that there is something, even if it's wishful thinking.

BurnUp78

Realtai wrote: »

Agnostic here. I just don't know if there is something after this life. I think a part of me, wants to believe that there is something, even if it's wishful thinking.

Why would there be though? Humans aren't that special. Sure we can use our big brains to imagine things like a higher power or send ourselves into outer space but at the end of the day we are no different than elephants or bacteria, all descendants from a common ancestor born, live for a finite amount of time and then die.

nozzferrahhtoo

Realtai wrote: »

Agnostic here. I just don't know if there is something after this life. I think a part of me, wants to believe that there is something, even if it's wishful thinking.

I am the opposite. Not only do I see no reason to think it is true, I am actually rather glad it is not.

The preciousness of life comes from it's transience. If you flooded the market with 1 million tons of gold tomorrow, gold would lose it's value for a reason.

olestoepoke

BurnUp78 wrote: »

Why would there be though? Humans aren't that special. Sure we can use our big brains to imagine things like a higher power or send ourselves into outer space but at the end of the day we are no different than elephants or bacteria, all descendants from a common ancestor born, live for a finite amount of time and then die.

I think the trick is to be ok with this. We didn't know what it was like before we were born and we won't know anything about it when we die. The best we can hope for is a happy meaningful life and some sort of peaceful death. I'm not too worried about dying it's coming and theres nothing any of us can do about it. I do fear dying painfully, a long lingering death. Hopefully when my time comes if I am in that position the law has changed regarding euthanasia.

beggars_bush

an extra terrestrial dictator?
Er, no

Mortelaro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again no, I have not. The problem being therefore not that I have over analysed my post, but that you have under analysed mine by simply ignoring it and deciding your own reality for yourself. Or in this case deciding MINE for yourself. As my comment was only about my reality, not yours.

I haven't, I simply it appears have a different definition of choice to you in relation to this versus you

Again, I am not able to choose my beliefs. I am COMPELLED to belief by evidence. I am precluded belief by lack of it. This is not my choice. I no more control it than I control the digestive processes of my food after I eat it. I can not more choose to believe, or not believe, in a god than I can use the power of my mind to tell my stomach to digest the sugars and not the carbs. I simply. Can. Not. Do. It.

my view is simple,if you can choose one path,you are choosing not to take another
Obviously for reasons

I can only comment on the data set I have NOW. Not yesterday. Not tomorrow. Just NOW. And NOW the sum total of all the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning I am aware of for the existence of a god is.... you guessed it..... zero. Nadda. Zilch. Diddly. Squat. Nichts. Nothing. Bugger all. Zip.

What I have to say about that won't be very helpful, but ultimately we will find out when we die
My view is,there is no way that I'd allow the tiny tiny spec of dust limit of understanding as it is now govern my attitude to what I don't know right now and likely will never know until I die or in some views (that are obviously anathema to me because of what I said in this thread) will never know

nozzferrahhtoo

Mortelaro wrote: »

I haven't, I simply it appears have a different definition of choice to you in relation to this versus you my view is simple,if you can choose one path,you are choosing not to take another

Always possible, I just do not think I have come across any definition of "choice" that does not fit with what I am saying. My lack of belief in a god has nothing to do with choice. The only CHOICE I have made in fact was to constantly seek out evidence for the claim, and keep up discourse with people who believe it. Other than that, no choice has been involved.

Mortelaro wrote: »

What I have to say about that won't be very helpful, but ultimately we will find out when we die

Well no, that only works if there is an after life. Then there will still be a "you" to find out. If there is not, then you will find out nothing.

As I said though I can only form my world views and beliefs on what data I have NOW. And right NOW there is no reason I am aware of to think there is a god or after life.

Happy to change my position should new information come in later. Even on or following my biological death.

Mortelaro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Always possible, I just do not think I have come across any definition of "choice" that does not fit with what I am saying.

I'm surprised at that
But you have now
Every choice involves a decision
You cannot have access to everyone's process in that decision
Ergo I disagree with your concept there

My lack of belief in a god has nothing to do with choice. The only CHOICE I have made in fact was to constantly seek out evidence for the claim, and keep up discourse with people who believe it. Other than that, no choice has been involved.

Again my analysis of your position as I said up thread is fundamentally different

Well no, that only works if there is an after life. Then there will still be a "you" to find out. If there is not, then you will find out nothing.

As I said though I can only form my world views and beliefs on what data I have NOW. And right NOW there is no reason I am aware of to think there is a god or after life.

But sure you don't know what happens on death,nor do I
So you or I can't be definitive there either
We can only speak for our own views and in my case,as stated upthread,I'm happy enough to not choose disbelief either
Its actually to me a corollary of what you said

nozzferrahhtoo

Mortelaro wrote: »

I'm surprised at that But you have now

Well not really given you have only used it, and suggested there is a different definition. I do not think you have actually offered that definition however. I am happy to stick with consensus between dictionaries until such time as I am given good reason to do otherwise.

I mean I have no interest in stopping people making up their own meaning for established words. More power to you. But do not be surprised if conversation breaks down when you say one thing, and everyone else assumes you mean something else because you are using meanings of words only YOU know.

Mortelaro wrote: »

You cannot have access to everyone's process in that decision Ergo I disagree with your concept there

Errrm I did not require it though? I was speaking only and solely about MY reality when it comes to the ability to "choose" belief. Not yours or anyone else's. So why would I need access to anyone else's process there at all? Let alone "everyone's"?

Mortelaro wrote: »

But sure you don't know what happens on death,nor do I

Nor do I need to, to make the statement I just made. Which again is just that when you say something like "You will find out when you die" this pre-supposes things that are actually only true in one case and not the other.

And given the pre-supposition in question ALSO happens to be the thing that was itself in question in the first place.... it basically means you have used a lot of words to actually say nothing at all. The very idea that "you" will find out supposes there will be a "you" to do the finding out which in turn presupposes the after life which is one of the very things in contention in the first place.

Mortelaro wrote: »

I'm happy enough to not choose disbelief either

And as I said, that is fascinating to me that you can make such a choice. It is not a capability I have. That is all.

Mortelaro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well not really given you have only used it, and suggested there is a different definition. I do not think you have actually offered that definition however. I am happy to stick with consensus between dictionaries until such time as I am given good reason to do otherwise.

All I said was everyone's decision path in making choices,you are not privy to
But you've just been made privy to mine which you never were before
There are billions of others

I mean I have no interest in stopping people making up their own meaning for established words. More power to you. But do not be surprised if conversation breaks down when you say one thing, and everyone else assumes you mean something else because you are using meanings of words only YOU know.

I think you're taking me up wrong, see my last point

Errrm I did not require it though? I was speaking only and solely about MY reality when it comes to the ability to "choose" belief. Not yours or anyone else's. So why would I need access to anyone else's process there at all? Let alone "everyone's"?

you can only speak for yourself without that though,which to be fair is what I understood you to be doing
I'm just making that point,not enforcing it!

Nor do I need to, to make the statement I just made. Which again is just that when you say something like "You will find out when you die" this pre-supposes things that are actually only true in one case and not the other.

And given the pre-supposition in question ALSO happens to be the thing that was itself in question in the first place.... it basically means you have used a lot of words to actually say nothing at all. The very idea that "you" will find out supposes there will be a "you" to do the finding out which in turn presupposes the after life which is one of the very things in contention in the first place.

No
It only means, I'm ruling nothing out (for reasons stated upthread)
Nothing else

And as I said, that is fascinating to me that you can make such a choice. It is not a capability I have. That is all.

I've no issue with your position
I suppose I'm answering questions on mine and a little tooing and froing
I don't agree that I've said nothing

nozzferrahhtoo

Mortelaro wrote: »

All I said was everyone's decision path in making choices,you are not privy to

Then you are just talking past me because all my point ever was was about MY decisions paths and MY ability (in this case inability) to choose what I believe. You keep telling me about the processes of others, or the decisions paths of others.... which is not really relevant to the thing I said.

Which is funny because you then go on to say "you can only speak for yourself" when I keep pointing out that is ALL I have been doing

Mortelaro wrote: »

No It only means, I'm ruling nothing out

Which is A) coherent and something I entirely agree with. When you phrase it that way, it is fine. When you say "we will find out when we die" however the language.... regardless of your intentions.... makes implications and suggestions that do not hold.

Mortelaro wrote: »

I've no issue with your position

Nor I, for the most part, yours. It would seem we are talking past each other. Partially because of linguistics.

To the topic of the thread though we remain in the same place as where we started. I still have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning upon which to suspect there is a god. Therefore I do not believe there is a god. And I can not "choose" to believe one, much as many theists ask me to as if they assume this is a capability I should have.

the beer revolu

^^^^^

Perhaps, you are both right!;)

Mortelaro

the beer revolu wrote: »

^^^^^

Perhaps, you are both right!;)