Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If God exists, who invented him?

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Your point above has NOTHING to do with this thread which assumes Gods existence.

    As should have been clear from the quote from your post I was referring to this comment by you

    The whole thing reminds me of the argument of God not being able to be measured scientifically (of couse his effects can be seen though ) as he is outside the natural world. the rebuttal from many ateists amounts to a sarcastic scoff of, 'How Convenient'. Its like, well, if God exists, you can't deny that this would be the way it would be, so whats the problem?

    I'm not sure how relevant the argument of God's measurability is to this thread, but then you brought it up. :)

    If you would like to leave that point and return to this thread I've no issue with that, but it seems some what silly to imply annoyance that I'm going off topic when responding to a point you made, particularly when that point was pondering the actions of atheists. I would also point out that the question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant to my point. You can assume either position, the out come is the same, just like assuming the invisible pink unicorn exists produces an observable world identical to one where the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist.


  • Options
    #93
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    He said that because god is untestable and we can’t know whether he exists, he doesn’t exist. (“Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't.”

    That is a some what bizarre post as your own statement is contradicted in the very quote you reference. I didn't assert he doesn't exist as your own quote there demonstrates :confused:

    This is the second time in the last few days on this forum you seem to have gotten the completely wrong end of the stick from what I'm saying and then presented it inaccurately. Could I ask you query me if you think I'm saying something that sounds like something I wouldn't say :pac:


  • Options
    #94
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    As should have been clear from the quote from your post I was referring to this comment by you

    The whole thing reminds me of the argument of God not being able to be measured scientifically (of couse his effects can be seen though ) as he is outside the natural world. the rebuttal from many ateists amounts to a sarcastic scoff of, 'How Convenient'. Its like, well, if God exists, you can't deny that this would be the way it would be, so whats the problem?

    I'm not sure how relevant the argument of God's measurability is to this thread, but then you brought it up. :)

    Its not, nor did I say it was. I said the attitude towards the explanation was similar to the point you quoted.
    If you would like to leave that point and return to this thread I've no issue with that

    I never made the point in the context you think I did. As I said, it is comparable only in highlighting the cynical attitude towards such explanations.
    but it seems some what silly to imply annoyance that I'm going off topic

    No annoyance here.
    when responding to a point you made,

    Again, you took the point out of context.
    I would also point out that the question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant to my point.

    As I am not arguing with your point, I don't mind if its relevant or not.


  • Options
    #95
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    I posted the following months back which didn’t much attention from Jakkass (who I politely asked to comment on). Once again, it highlights the psychology of believers for why they think they believe and why they reckon other people believe.

    I can only apologise for this. When I post here I often get a tidal-wave of posts, it simply isn't possible to deal with all of them.

    However, if you can post a link to the study and also to the thread that it was posted in (so I can get a feel for the context) I'd be happy to go through this in more depth.


  • Options
    #96
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its not, nor did I say it was. I said the attitude towards the explanation was similar to the point you quoted.

    And you asked whats the problem, to which I responded. Perhaps this was rhetorical?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    As I said, it is comparable only in highlighting the cynical attitude towards such explanations.

    As I explained the objection to "such explanations" is based on the flaw in the reasoning, not cynicism. I'm not saying atheists aren't cynics when it comes to theist, but that is rather here nor there with relation to the the question of the quality of theist claims or arguments.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    No annoyance here.

    The combative ton of your posts and your constant reference to derogatory terms would suggest otherwise. Perhaps this is you on a good day, but perhaps toning down the rhetoric would be helpful for further discussions :)
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, you took the point out of context.
    Perhaps. You seemed to be misrepresenting something and I wished to clarify the position. I agree its relevance to this thread is not high.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    As I am not arguing with your point, I don't mind if its relevant or not.

    Your assertion was that my point was irrelevant to this thread as this thread assumes God's existence. My point does not hinge on God's existence, which was perhaps not understood, so I was clarifying. No offense intended.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The combative ton of your posts and your constant reference to derogatory terms would suggest otherwise. Perhaps this is you on a good day, but perhaps toning down the rhetoric would be helpful for further discussions :)

    I don't know if your accusation is accurate, nor do I mind. What is important for me is remaining honest.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No offense intended.

    None taken.


  • Options
    #98
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but this is just more baseless derision.

    Its rather self explanatory. If Time and Space are created by a being, then it can reasonably follow, that the concept of time and space do not apply to said being. Its not simply 'made up', but rather a fairly logical thought progression.



    Its not a rule, its simply a logical deduction that says, the creator of the laws of Physics space and time, does not have to be constrained by what he has created. I.E. We can't apply the laws of the created, to the being that is outside of that creation.
    Prove it. Show us the maths.


  • Options
    #99
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't know if your accusation is accurate, nor do I mind. What is important for me is remaining honest.

    The accusation of dishonesty is banded about so often it has lost all meaning on this forum and the other forum. It is probably best to avoid it, it adds little.


  • Options
    #100
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    20goto10 wrote: »
    Prove it. Show us the maths.

    My guess is that you've looked at the 'rebuttals' of others in this thread and unfortunately, like them, think that this is about something that its not. I.E. Some kind of proof that God exists.

    So I'll try give you clarity in the face of all the noise.

    the OPs question is

    Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator?

    So, the premise is set, and assumes Gods existance. So PLEASE COMPREHEND, the following reasoning IS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROOVING THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING. As per the OP, Gods existence is assumed in the question. So the below explanation is for people who demand that we put constraints like Time, Physics etc on an entity that, IF IT EXISTS, would be very likely to be OUTSIDE of these constraints. So the below explanation simply shows that you can't demand we put our universes laws etc on a proposed entity that by definition is the creator of said universe, and thus outside of said creation.

    IF God (X) created the universe (Y), and we can only observe Y and not observe X, and do not know its constraints, if any etc. Then we cannot demand or insist that X is constrained by the same laws as Y.

    This usually comes up when a theist says something like 'well what was before the big bang' or 'Where did the thing that went bang come from, or whatever' (Again, forget about arguing how accurate their impression of the big bang or whatever is. It is absolutely irrelevant) Some people respond, 'Well where did God come from' And that is where the explanation in bold comes in. I.E. A creator, by definition, does not have to be constrained by the concepts of his creation like space and time. Again, remember, all of this assumes such a being exists, its not a proof that said being exists.


  • Options
    #101
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The accusation of dishonesty is banded about so often it has lost all meaning on this forum and the other forum. It is probably best to avoid it, it adds little.

    :confused: Do you think I was accusing you? my point was that, I pay much more attention to my being honest than minding what words I use in case you misunderstood.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can only apologise for this. When I post here I often get a tidal-wave of posts, it simply isn't possible to deal with all of them.

    However, if you can post a link to the study and also to the thread that it was posted in (so I can get a feel for the context) I'd be happy to go through this in more depth.

    I understand Jakkass; you do often get an insurmountable barrage of posts put to you. I was merely curious what you made of the study and since you continued to post in that thread (even responding to particular posters), it just looked as though you had deliberately ignored that particular bit I put up (although, I do realise that may not have been the case).

    Here it is on the thread: Common Atheistic Fallacies

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69589975

    The study, from 1998 conducted with MIT psychologist Frank Sulloway, is featured in Michael Shermer’s book: How We Believe (2000, p. 249)

    I can’t locate anything on Google books for you but this here is the top result:

    http://machineslikeus.com/news/religion-and-evidence-1-why-people-believe


  • Options
    #103
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    :confused: Do you think I was accusing you? my point was that, I pay much more attention to my being honest than minding what words I use in case you misunderstood.

    My point was the opposite, I care a less about honesty (or making claims to other posters about being dishonest) and a more about how they conduct themselves and the substance of their arguments. Someone can be lying their ass off, the substance of their argument is what matters.

    But this is veering into back seat mod territory so I think I'll leave it at that.


  • Options
    #104
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    My point was the opposite, I care a less about honesty (or making claims to other posters about being dishonest) and a more about how they conduct themselves

    Yeah, its a common attitude, to which I vehemently disagree. Its why i hate the idea of debating teams etc. I hate the idea that it is seen as a good thing to train yourself to argue well even if you think the opposite of what you are arguing for or against. but hey ho, we are veering off on a tangent:)


  • Options
    #105
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    JimiTime wrote: »
    My guess is that you've looked at the 'rebuttals' of others in this thread and unfortunately, like them, think that this is about something that its not. I.E. Some kind of proof that God exists.

    So I'll try give you clarity in the face of all the noise.

    the OPs question is

    Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator?

    So, the premise is set, and assumes Gods existance. So PLEASE COMPREHEND, the following reasoning IS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROOVING THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING. As per the OP, Gods existence is assumed in the question. So the below explanation is for people who demand that we put constraints like Time, Physics etc on an entity that, IF IT EXISTS, would be very likely to be OUTSIDE of these constraints. So the below explanation simply shows that you can't demand we put our universes laws etc on a proposed entity that by definition is the creator of said universe, and thus outside of said creation.

    IF God (X) created the universe (Y), and we can only observe Y and not observe X, and do not know its constraints, if any etc. Then we cannot demand or insist that X is constrained by the same laws as Y.

    This usually comes up when a theist says something like 'well what was before the big bang' or 'Where did the thing that went bang come from, or whatever' (Again, forget about arguing how accurate their impression of the big bang or whatever is. It is absolutely irrelevant) Some people respond, 'Well where did God come from' And that is where the explanation in bold comes in. I.E. A creator, by definition, does not have to be constrained by the concepts of his creation like space and time. Again, remember, all of this assumes such a being exists, its not a proof that said being exists.
    Ok so there was no before god is simply the same as there was no before the big bang. Time and space were created by the bang is the same as saying time and space were created by God. I get that. But the difference is that the scientific theory does not require anything else. It does not require divine intervention, there therefore is no other questions to ask in so far as questions relating to time, space and matter are concerned. The god theory on the other hand has one big fat obvious question to which no theologian has even come close to answering.

    You've attempted some answers and that's great. I think everyone will agree your participation is much appreciated. But I'm curious as to what evidence this is based on? Is there a mathematical theory out there to back up these ideas or is it purely philosophical? I.e made up.


  • Options
    #106
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    Indeed. It’s a truism, which means that it’s a statement of very limited value. (“Red things are red!”) But it’s not an act of faith.

    But Wicknight didn’t say that because god is untestable we cannot know whether he exists. He said that because god is untestable and we can’t know whether he exists, he doesn’t exist. (“Christians define God as untestable, which is the same as defining God as not being there at all since if he is untestable then we cannot tell the difference between a universe where he exists and one where he doesn't.”)

    That’ a very different statement. And, because it rests on an untested and untestable proposition (if we can’t know whether something is not there or not, it’s not there) it looks to me a lot like an act of faith.

    If we stick to the letter of the issue all we can say about something for which we have no conclusive evidence is that we don't know whether or not it exists.

    However when it comes to most imaginary creatures, like the ones I listed in my previous post, most reasonable people are happy to assume that because there is no evidence for their existence, they are works of fiction and probably do not exist. One can argue that strictly speaking this is a position of faith. But it doesn't seem unreasonable because if we spent our entire loves worrying about the existence of all manner of things for which there is no proof of their existence (since it's technically impossible to prove the non-existance of anything) we wouldn't get very far. This is also a position taken up by the religious.

    I don't think you'll see religious people trying to argue for example that because there is no proof of his lack of existence Santa Claus does exist.

    But they make a special exception of this general principle for God. That is all about their need to believe or brainwashing at a young age, probably both.

    My own personal stance is that I accept the possibility of a higher power but I reject quite strongly the existence of a deity as described by human religion because I find those definitions to be paradoxical.

    In that sense a study of the history of religion is enough to "prove" the non-existence of THEIR god, in my view.


  • Options
    #107
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Ah yes, I was wondering when you were going to get here;)

    It is, as it is absolutely irrelevant to the explanation in question and what it seeks to explain, but I'll leave you believe otherwise.


    You're some man for one man ha ha.

    If only you had any idea of what THE debate actually is.

    This is getting stupid Jimi. A pantheistic explanation of god is a god who, by virtue of being the universe, is subject to the limits of the universe, therefore it directly contradicts your notion that any concept that says the universe must be created must have a creator that isn't effected by the constrains of the universe. You are so wrong that you even explained how you are when you tried to argue that every one else is wrong. Its not even funny anymore, this level of denial is insane.


  • Options
    #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Wow, failed at the first hurdle. There can be no "faith in atheism" for atheism is a lack of faith. Besides that, there is a simple answer that, in the absense of evidence, require no conjecture: I dont know.
    Thought you might say that but it's nonsense to say that atheists are different because they have no faith in their own disbelief of religous beliefs.
    It's what I find funny about these discussions.
    The pots always accuse the kettles of being black arse's.


  • Options
    #109
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    20goto10 wrote: »
    You've attempted some answers and that's great. I think everyone will agree your participation is much appreciated. But I'm curious as to what evidence this is based on? Is there a mathematical theory out there to back up these ideas or is it purely philosophical? I.e made up.

    Not to answer for others, but there will be no mathematical (or scientific) evidence. It is a theological argument or premise.


  • Options
    #110
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thought you might say that but it's nonsense to say that atheists are different because they have no faith in their own disbelief of religous beliefs.
    It's what I find funny about these discussions.
    The pots always accuse the kettles of being black arse's.

    This makes no sense.

    Try reading his post again.

    Theism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

    Add the pre-fix 'A' and you get : A-theism.

    Which simply means that you never signed up to believe in the first place. It does not require faith to NOT believe something.

    It's shocking how this utterly simple point routinely eludes the religious. Maybe because they cannot fathom a system that does not rely on faith. Or maybe because you need to think that atheists are just like you deep down, just having a different faith.

    But that's not the case.

    Logic >>> Faith. And if that makes the religious feel less. Then it is because that aspect of their thinking, is.


  • Options
    #111
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thought you might say that but it's nonsense to say that atheists are different because they have no faith in their own disbelief of religous beliefs.
    It's what I find funny about these discussions.
    The pots always accuse the kettles of being black arse's.

    Its nonsense to accuse atheism of being a faith based position, as its a position of no faith. It would be like saying that not playing football is a physical exercise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    JimiTime wrote: »

    IF God (X) created the universe (Y), and we can only observe Y and not observe X, and do not know its constraints, if any etc. Then we cannot demand or insist that X is constrained by the same laws as Y.    .

    Complete Fail.

    IF the Universe is finite and IF the Universe was created and IF God exists and IF God created the Universe then ...


  • Options
    #113
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    virmilitaris wrote: »
    Complete Fail.

    IF the Universe is finite and IF the Universe was created and IF God exists and IF God created the Universe then ...

    Faith...


  • Options
    #114
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Thanks Waking-Dreams. I think it is interesting and I would think it would be interesting if similar research was done in respect to atheism. Personally I don't deny that there is an emotional aspect in respect to faith in God, I recognise that I have such attachments and I don't consider them to be in any way negative. Such attachments in and of themselves aren't adequate reasons for determining why God is reasonable and why He is more likely to exist than not but they are there none the less.

    Personally I think irrespective to how I feel, or how others feel about God, it is still wholly possible that God still exists even in spite of the fact that most people relate God to every day experience. This also demonstrates something quite interesting to me. People actually believe that God is relevant to their lives, and indeed that the Bible is relevant to their lives. This directly would go against the claim that the Bible and God cannot possibly really have any significance apart from being the works of goatherders. Other studies including one commissioned by the Evangelical Alliance in Britain also show that the more active one is in faith, the more likely people are to volunteer or take part in other charitable activities:
    The more time an evangelical Christian spends reading the Bible each week, the more active they are in other areas of their faith. They are more likely to volunteer, to give money, to pray frequently and talk about their faith.

    Although faith may have such affects in peoples lives, these reasons fail to convince others who have not experienced such. That's the problem with arguments from experience. This poll has no impact on the actual case that there is for Christianity as objective truth. Subjective experience can only tell us so much of this experience.

    As I've said already, I would expect a high instance of emotional responses in respect to atheism as well as in respect to Christianity. This explains to me nothing other than that humans are emotional beings rather than mere rational machines.


  • Options
    #115
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would expect a high instance of emotional responses in respect to atheism as well as in respect to Christianity. This explains to me nothing other than that humans are emotional beings rather than mere rational machines.
    I think it should explain a lot more to you than just that.

    At most, one side is correct. From the christian perspective, atheists are damned individuals, destined to burn for all eternity in bottomless lakes of sulfur, who spread dangerous propaganda intended to drag others into the same eternal inferno, who are a fatal threat to the eternal lives of everybody who believes them. From the atheist's perspective, christians are spreading anti-social, irrational rubbish dressed up as philosophy, and doing so free of taxes.

    It's hardly surprising there are strong emotions on both sides.


  • Options
    #116
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People actually believe that God is relevant to their lives, and indeed that the Bible is relevant to their lives.

    I'd possibly like to think this is true* in the absence of any other thought process. It is for my parents, was for my grandparents and probably true for many other people I have known; however, I'd estimate that around 60-70% of those I know well now would not say so and/or do not actively consider their lives is such a way. They still consider themselves RC BTW.

    Some friends who would advocate a belief in God, for example: those who go to mass because of habit or a perception that it is the right thing to do, seem to get little out of it other than the fact that they tick the box for being there. Outside of the Sunday trip to the church, religion plays no further active part in their week. A case of "been there, done that".

    Regarding the bible, I can count on one hand the people I know who have read or use the bible in any way.

    * I'm not at the stage where I presume that people who are religious are automatically stupid or evil.


  • Options
    #117
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    b318isp wrote: »
    I'd possibly like to think this is true* in the absence of any other thought process. It is for my parents, was for my grandparents and probably true for many other people I have known; however, I'd estimate that around 60-70% of those I know well now would not say so and/or do not actively consider their lives is such a way. They still consider themselves RC BTW.

    I think in cases such as this it is much more an apathetic attitude towards God that is in play. The same with many people in some other denominations too.
    b318isp wrote: »
    Some friends who would advocate a belief in God, for example: those who go to mass because of habit or a perception that it is the right thing to do, seem to get little out of it other than the fact that they tick the box for being there. Outside of the Sunday trip to the church, religion plays no further active part in their week. A case of "been there, done that".

    What do you think that says about their relationship with God? I know this might sound strange but one can actually believe in God's existence without actually making any effort to establish a relationship with Him.
    b318isp wrote: »
    Regarding the bible, I can count on one hand the people I know who have read or use the bible in any way.

    It is interesting to see the research done by the Evangelical Alliance in establishing a link between Bible reading and other activities, such as giving and volunteering. It shows that reading the Bible can have some value in peoples lives and that it does make a difference for a lot of people.
    b318isp wrote: »
    * I'm not at the stage where I presume that people who are religious are automatically stupid or evil.

    Thanks be to God on that one. I don't know if even engaging such blinkered positions is really productive for anyone.
    robindch wrote:
    From the atheist's perspective, christians are spreading anti-social, irrational rubbish dressed up as philosophy, and doing so free of taxes.

    I think the decision to be an atheist is much more about a dislike of Christianity or the Christianity that many Christians have presented above and beyond rational reasons. I would be surprised if any poll suggested otherwise.

    What people feel isn't the best way of determining what is true. It's a key reason I'm not a fan of the ontological argument which is itself based on a thought experiment.


  • Options
    #118
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think the decision to be an atheist is much more about a dislike of Christianity or the Christianity that many Christians have presented above and beyond rational reasons. I would be surprised if any poll suggested otherwise.

    I'm sorry... what?

    You know how to start a poll Jakkass. Off you go. Prepare to be surprised.


  • Options
    #119
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    Thanks for your view on that Jakkass.

    I too would be curious to see what a similar study conducted on atheists would yield. Though, I suspect that confabulations wouldn't rank so highly among the reasons listed for non-belief. Again, it goes back to what Haidt was saying that even when you defeat an argument, this doesn't make a difference because their reason for why they feel that way goes much deeper.

    What reasons would atheists make up for their not believing? “You're obviously just angry with god”? I once seen that that said to a non-believer here; gave me an auld chuckle.

    And considering that atheism also rejects belief in all the good stuff: life after death, or heaven, or reuniting with loved ones for all eternity, you could say that there is no real “comfort level” to be had in thinking that once you die, that's it... no eternal life-everlasting. It sort of goes against our deepest wishes yet just because something sounds appealing to us and what we would like to be true doesn't mean we think it's a possibility.

    Plenty of atheists, I'm sure, would love for there to be a supreme being that cares for them but just can't bring themselves to seriously think it's true based on the lack of evidence.

    It might even be a little scary to some atheists but nevertheless, the evidence which they see compels them to accept the reality and make the best of their lives. A bit like a reverse pascal's wager: what does one gain from not believing in the idea of god?

    From the theist perspective it could be eternal damnation and other such notions.

    From the perspective of the atheist it could be freedom from certain rules set by the religion, freedom from the fear of not being 'good enough' to get into heaven, or freedom from the church looking over their shoulder saying whatever they are doing is 'wrong' and they need to be fixed or shown the way. It could mean freedom from guilt or shame, depending on what religion they were a part of.

    Obviously, I see more emotional reasons for wanting to believe in a god than on the side of believing that we are just like all the other species of creatures here on earth for a limited number of years. But yeah, everyone has their own opinion on it.


  • Options
    #120
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What do you think that says about their relationship with God? I know this might sound strange but one can actually believe in God's existence without actually making any effort to establish a relationship with Him.

    I don't know. My feeling is that it is a cosmetic relationship. Many people go to mass, have weddings, have baptisms, have their kids communion & confirmation parties, generally respect the priests and then have religious funeral as part of socially integrating or not standing out from others. Almost that they tick the boxes of generally doing God's wishes.

    I'm less confident that they do this for moral or spiritual reasons.

    For example, one thing that really bugs me came about last week. We were invited to three comfirmation parties by neighbours. Grateful to get an invitation to anything these days :rolleyes:, I was stunned by the sheer advertising going on. Two houses were professionally decorated days beforehand. One had new carpets put in. One had a new kitchen. The parties themselves had such a lavish display and presentation of food that I was quite taken aback.

    All that the kids seemed interested in was the amount of money they had received and how much they thought they would get in total - and I'm talking well over €1000 for 11 year olds. I know kids are kids, and I probably did the same myself, but the scale quite shocked me.

    There seems to have been NO reflection on the religious significance of the day nor any evidence that parents were being anything but materialistic show offs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    ArtSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 5,614 ✭✭✭ArtSmart


    dclane wrote: »
    Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator? Bit of a chicken and egg I guess?
    Thanks for sharing.

    Please be sure to share any further 'wonderings'.

    The world would be an emptier place without such wonderings.

    (I wonder if if left the Iron on?)


Advertisement