Describe the God you believe in.

[edhopper]

I was told in another thread that this has not been asked of believers here.
I thought we had discussed this, but I could be wrong.
So, as that as an atheist, I should know which concept of God I am refuting, I agree that it is probably a good idea to listen to what or whom believers actually believe in.

[AleksS]

1. And could people be specific?

For example, do you believe god answers prayers? Talks to people? Makes babies? Writes books? Helps sports teams win? Etc.?

Thanks!

[edhopper]

2. They could if they like

but more to the point, if the are members of any religion, how does their concept of God differ from that of their religion, or portrayed in their holy book?

[cbayer]

3. Do you think there is a singular description of god in the bible?

Because it is a collection of books written by humans, the descriptions of god seem all over the place to me.

One could adhere to any number of concepts, depending on what parts they read.

Or do you see a single, overriding description there?

[edhopper]

5. If someone believes in God

they should have some concept of what or whom that God is.
It's not about my ideas of God, I don't believe in God.
It's about what believers think. If they say, "I believe in the God of the Bible", you question would be appropriate for them.

[cbayer]

7. Agreed, but you asked specifically if it deviated from the god described in their holy book.

My point is that there isn't a singular description in the bible.

So what constitutes "differing"? Does that mean some kind of concept not included in that book at all?

If someone says, "I believe in the God of the Bible", I would want to ask for much more specific information.

[edhopper]

10. True

but I'll wait to see how the people reply. The specific questions depend on the posts.

[cbayer]

12. At any rate, it could be a really interesting discussion.

I'd bet on answers all over the place, but could be wrong.

I did try to find where this might have been discussed before, but was not successful.

[edhopper]

13. It was quite a while ago

a few years at least. No matter, we are doing it now.

[Goblinmonger]

4. I think the Lord's Prayer and the Nicene Creed are interesting, too.

Do Christian believers say a version of those prayers? If so, how does that version of God in those prayers differ from the version you say you believe in?

[arely staircase]

33. I say both regularly.

I believe the contain profound truths but I do not absolutize them or believe each affirmation literally.

[trotsky]

6. Glad you started this thread.

I'm also pretty sure it's been discussed before, many times, so the claim in that thread surprised me too.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. It has. This is a distraction, I think.

The idea is so well-hashed out it has a name. (The Courtier's Reply, based on the story of The Emperor Has No Clothes.)

[safeinOhio]

8. The Tao that is spoken of

is not the eternal Tao

[edhopper]

11. That's fine

but if you could elaborate. Does this mean you believe in a Buddhist concept of the Universe, and if so, how would you charcterize it personally. Quoting others doesn't really say what you believe.

[skepticscott]

14. Expect a lot of responses like that

Especially from Xstians here, who will dance all night rather than admit to any specific beliefs.(well, all but one, who believes everything because they do)

[safeinOhio]

36. I have more of a Taoist view than Buddhist.

If there is more, it is way beyond our knowledge or comprehension. Better, words can not explain what words can not explain. What is God or who is God can not be answered, in my opinion, so why even ask the question.

[hrmjustin]

15. I believe in a loving God.

[cleanhippie]

23. Does a "loving god" commit genocide or total extermination of people?

The Christian god did that. Is that the same one?

[hrmjustin]

25. I think humans did that.

[cleanhippie]

27. Humans created the great flood that exterminated everyone but Noah?

That's news to me.

[hrmjustin]

28. I think if there was a flood it was not God.

[cleanhippie]

29. Who did it then? Who told Noah he was gonna do it?

Sorry brother, that's just plain denial of the facts.

There's also a whole lot of smiting done by god too. Not by humans, but by god. It's in the bible, the same one you read, right?

[hrmjustin]

30. Lol. The bible says that creation was made in a week.

We know that is not true.

[cleanhippie]

37. So what parts are and aren't true then?

[hrmjustin]

40. Imo I take the NT more literally.

The Ot I believe some things but others not so much.

[cleanhippie]

59. What criteria do you use to determine what is and isn't to be taken literally?

Weve also gotten away from the point of this conversation: The "loving god" you believe in has killed people. Lots of them. What is so "loving" about that?

[hrmjustin]

61. I don't believe God killed anyone.

I base my faith based on what makes sense to me.

[cleanhippie]

63. So you are a "cafeteria" christian?

I'm not using that word disparagingly, either. It simply implies that you pick what works for you and leave the rest.

[hrmjustin]

66. I follow most of the traditional ideas of Christianity but I don't believe 100% like a

fundamentalist.

[cleanhippie]

67. So were in agreement then?

I noticed you avoided answering any more questions regarding the "loving god" you believe in. How do you feel about the many, many terrible things he did to people as documented in the Bible?

[hrmjustin]

69. The God of the ot is fire and brimstone. The God of the NT is love. I believe in love.

I don't take the passages that say God killed this group or that too seriously.

[trotsky]

70. So your god changed?

Some people think god is eternal and unchanging.

[hrmjustin]

73. I can not speak to that. I will say humans idea of him has evolved.

[cleanhippie]

78. Right. You take what works for you and leave the rest.

[hrmjustin]

79. I put things in perspective. I try to ddetermine whati think is just human invention and

Divine revelation.

[cleanhippie]

80. Right. We're in agreement then.

[hrmjustin]

81. remind me what we are agreeing on again.

[cleanhippie]

87. Stop being obtuse.

[Starboard Tack]

110. What do you find wrong with that?

That's how we operate as humans. We go with what works for us. Makes a lot of sense. For example, guns work for some people and not for others. Surely you agree on that, so why not which books or stories work for you? Sounds like Dawkins and Hitchens work for you, yet not so much for me and many other non believers.
Nobody is trying to convert you here and nobody is calling you dumb or stupid for not believing anything in the bible. Why can't you show the same respect for others as they show you regarding your beliefs?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

291. I've asked this question before, so respectfully, I'd like to ask it again

I haven't received a good answer to it. Or at least not one that I find satisfying.

Many believe as you that the God of the OT is not necessarily the God of the NT (I also tend to agree with you even if I think both are works of fiction). So why not drop the OT as a sacred book of your religion? When the God of the OT isn't being cruel, the OT documents things that are demonstrably false - humans turning into pillars of salt; a flood covering the whole earth; men living hundreds of years (aside: it's always the men - apparently women, as the weaker sex, didn't live that long); two people populating the earth without a giant mess of genetic mutations from all the inbreeding; prophecies that can never happen; six days to create the world; etc. Add to that the sort of silly "commandments" like not eating shellfish and you've got a book that really isn't useful any more (if it ever was).

So why would you, or your church, continue to keep the OT in the canon? Is there any reason other than tradition that keeps it around? Don't get me wrong; I'm not going to start believing in God if one of the churches drops it from the canon. But for liberal or progressive denominations, doesn't it make sense to dump the parts that are used to justify anti-LGBT, racist, or misogynistic beliefs or actions?

[hrmjustin]

295. Tradition.

No church will part with it.

We should always remember it was written by people and it reflects the values of their time.

We consider it a part of salvation history but our values evolve and improve.

[edhopper]

302. Would it be fair to say that

Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2014, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The OT reflects some of the interactions of your God with humanity, and even specific people, even if those stories have been altered by the way they have been brought through the millenia?

[hrmjustin]

306. Yes this is a good explanation.

[el_bryanto]

31. Thanks for illustrating the point so succinctly

It's kind of you to illustrate how atheists sometimes assign beliefs to believers without actually knowing what they believe. Very helpful to the discussion.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

39. If you even knew a fraction about what you think you do when you spout off...

You might be dangerous. But you don't , so you aren't.

Have a nice day.

[el_bryanto]

41. Dangerous? That's an interesting choice of words. nt

[cleanhippie]

60. Intellectually dangerous.

QED

[Starboard Tack]

111. With respect, I'd like to point out that only some atheists do that

I object to being associated with those who presume to know what others believe. There are several atheists who only see in black and white, but I think and hope they are a minority. Though, at times, a deafening minority.

[lumpy]

35. Do you believe the Bible was written by a god? Do you believe that humans are incapable

of dreaming up superstition for their personal gain or control?

[cleanhippie]

38. That's most likely what happened.

But this isn't about what I do or don't believe.

[rug]

16. Describe the god you don't believe in.

Since you reject it, I presume you know what you're rejecting.

[LostOne4Ever]

19. Anything that has the power to create the universe

and can't or won't raise a finger to stop all the pain and sorrow in this or any other world.

[rug]

20. So said Epicurus. But simplify it.

Do you believe or disbelieve there is anything that has the power to create the universe?

[eomer]

24. My views don't include anything that has the power to create the universe.

I believe the universe exists, based on observation. Adding something to have created it, something I've had no observations of, only adds complexity that I find no justification for. It's an application of Occam's Razor.

[rug]

34. Then the attributes of a creator are irrelevant to nonbelief.

[eomer]

42. Something didn't knock me silly this morning but it happened so fast...

... that I didn't notice its attributes.

It may have been God that didn't knock me silly this morning, too bad I wasn't paying closer attention.

[rug]

43. Have you done laundry recently?

[eomer]

44. Ah, you may be onto something.

I have no idea what that means but do acknowledge that it was the perfect response.

[eomer]

49. Maybe someone else can help: what do you believe it was...

... that didn't knock me silly this morning? What do believe its attributes are?

[eomer]

51. "But you were silly already", you may say.

True! Good point, why didn't I think of that?

So whatever it was likely had intelligence. And probably empathy.

Great work, who's next? What else might we believe about whatever didn't knock me silly this morning?

[LostOne4Ever]

58. I dont know

But I don't think anything has the power to create the universe.

All things in the known universe are composed of energy in one form or another. We know from the 1st law of thermodynamics that energy can not be created or destroyed.

This implies to me that energy has always existed in one form or another. Thus no beginning or end.

But this is nothing more than a somewhat educated conjecture on my part. Or if you want a simple yes or no I would say no.

[rug]

62. I think it is something that will never be known.

So, here we are.

[LostOne4Ever]

65. I agree and thus another of my issues with religion

We can never know and to tell the truth we can never have certainty of anything. I can't even guarentee that im really here typing this response to you or having an extremely realistic dream.

Yet, according to some, based on this flawed evidence I am supposed to wager my soul on one and only one choice at the risk of eternal torture for making a simple mistake. It seems like a game in which I have been set up to fail no matter what choice I pick.

Which pill should I take the red pill or the blue pill? I like red so I'm going to go with it.

[rug]

68. I don't think the fate of your soul, if there is one, depends on that choice.

Keep your integrity. I have doubt in my faith and faith in my doubt. In the end, I doubt my doubt. Dubito, ergo credo.

[edhopper]

45. I don't believe in anything supernatural

I also don't see any need to include a supernatural explanation to the Universe.
I have also never seen any evidence of a God or gods influencing or acting on the World.
Therefore I don't believe in any gods. So yes i know what i am rejecting and have no trouble talking about it.

Do you have a problem describing the God you pray to. I would think you would have some concept of him.

[rug]

46. Not at all.

Bearing in mind that anything capable of description is not God.

Personally, I rarely pray, just give a passing nod.

[edhopper]

48. So what is your concept of God

I believe you have said you are a Catholic. If we use that as a starting point, how would you describe him?

[rug]

50. I wouldn't even attempt it.

But you can go to John 1:1-18. Especially 18.

[edhopper]

53. Okay

So the NT is partly a communication from God?

[rug]

55. It would be less interesting if it weren't.

[arely staircase]

17. the creator of all that is seen and unseen

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2014, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But I believe in biological evolution as accepted by modern science. So I do not believe God sweeps in and contradicts the laws of science and nature that are part of his ongoing creation. I believe the universe he made is good and we are all free to enjoy it Nd live in harmony with it. And all people are made in God"s image and worthy of our respect and love.

[freshwest]

88. +1

[PassingFair]

91. Do you believe that "god" wants to be worshipped? Or that you can plead with it?

Does "god" specifically answer prayers?

Is "god" omnipotent?

Does "god" "know" you as an individual?

Will "god" let you live in heaven after you die?

Just curious.....

[LostOne4Ever]

18. When I did believe...

When I was a catholic I believed in an all powerful all benevolent personal god who created the world and guided mankind. Because I saw said God as all benevolent I refused to believe in hell. He was the old man you see on murals like the Sistine chapel.

As my views changed and I became a Deist my view of God was an conscious all knowing force that created the universe but ceased interfering with the world. It was a Scientist and existence was its experiment. It was neither good or evil and probably had no gender.

If there is a god I still think it is the most likely the one I believed in when I was a Deist; though, I now find it hard to believe that even an indifferent god like this could witness the pain and sorrow that exists in this world and NOT do something about it.

[el_bryanto]

21. I believe in God as a spiritual father who has ordered the universe

so as to allow us to grow and become better; which means we face challenges and problems. I believe in a God that answers prayers.

Bryant

[LiberalEsto]

22. She is the Mother of Creation nt

[pinto]

26. I don't believe in god. Yet I'm not an atheist. Or a deist for that matter.

Many see that as waffling on the issue. To be honest, I don't see an issue. i.e. it's not an issue for me one way or the other, save for separation of church / state stuff.

Apparently there was a guy name Jesus who spoke as a "prophet" as many in his day did. Apparently he espoused a very humanist point of view, particularly among the poor and working classes, that attracted many. Some coalesced around the message to form a movement which became Christianity.

The message resonates with me. I could be seen as a Christian in that aspect. And I am, in that aspect. Whether a god exists or doesn't is outside my experience. So I won't make a call.

Yet, I like the discussions in the same way I like discussions about what was there before the big bang? Was there nothing? Or something?

[lumpy]

32. I don't know if there is a god, I simply don't know who created the universe and all it's trappings.

The reality is that no one really knows the truth about anything.

[edhopper]

47. Would you say you are agnostic then?

or lean toward believing their is something, though you don't know how to define it?

[elleng]

52. I'll let Beethoven do it.

[edhopper]

54. That's beautiful

but are you saying that God had something to do with it?
Are you saying an atheist could not have written it?

[elleng]

56. No, as asked, I'm 'describing' the 'God' I believe in,

nature.

[edhopper]

64. ahh!

Got it.

[Stargleamer]

288. Spinoza's God? n/t

[elleng]

316. Dunno; haven't studied.

MINE, tho.

[Prophet 451]

57. I can tell you the god I believe in

He's a vicious tyrant who created humans to be his playthings, laid out rules no-one could ever live up to, imposes infinite punishments for finite crimes. He's not a being of love, he's a being with an adolescent fixation on being loved, the same way an abusive spouse demands the love of his victim. He's a monster who doesn't deserve worship. That's why I worship Lucifer.

I think that god created the universe by creating the singularity that led to the first Big Bang and thereafter, let natural cosmology and evolution take it's course. I say "first" Big Bang because I'm a believer in the cyclical universe model, that the Big Bang happened and tossed out a universe which continues expanding until the momentum runs out, whereupon gravity slowly draws everything back together into another singularity, which then undergoes a new Big Bang, creating a new universe. So while our universe is 13.8 billion years old, the universe is also, in some sense, eternal.

Now, your questions:

do you believe god answers prayers? Helps sports teams win?

Maybe sometimes, if it fits his psychotic whims.

Talks to people?

I don't know, he's never talked to me. I think he has talked to a few people over the centuries, telling his version of events.

Makes babies?

Your parents have had the talk with you, right?

Writes books?

No. The books are a mixture of propaganda, fact and fiction. Some of it is probably true. There probably was a Jesus who wandered first-century Palestine preaching peace and love but his story has been heavily mythologized over the years. Much of the rest is propaganda designed to make humans adore the evil bastard.

[cbayer]

72. I don't know that you meant it to be, but I found this post highly entertaining.

I really like your writing style.

[Prophet 451]

74. LOL, thank you n/t

[Starboard Tack]

94. Brilliant!

[Mariana]

96. Will you describe Lucifer, please?

What is he like? Why is he worthy of worship?

I agree with your assessment of God's character, although I believe he's a fictional figure and not real.

[Prophet 451]

97. Hmmm

OK. Lucifer is paternal and caring toward humanity but also frequently exasperated by us. Like the better sort of teacher, he rarely supplies answers directly but nudges you toward figuring things out for yourself. He glories in scholarship and learning and considers that an unexamined conviction is not one worth having. He doesn't suffer fools easily but is indulgent toward those who strive for learning, however slow their progress. Oh, and I use the male pronoun purely for convienience, my lord is both male and female, gay and straight as the whim strikes him.

Whether he is worthy of worship is not something I can dictate to you. The essential difference between Lucifer and god is a difference that god wishes us to be unreasoning sheep, his unquestioning, adoring pets. Father Lucifer wishes us to be more than that. You remember the story of teh snake in the garden? Well, what the snake (Lucifer) gifted us was the capacity for moral self-determination, the ability to make our own judgements, to go from "thou shalt not" to "I will not". And I'm not suggesting that the story is literally true but it's an easy way to sum up what the main bone of contention between the two is. God is a merciless tyrant who "loves" us the way an abusive spouse loves his victim. Father Lucifer opposes him and is the fairer and more compassionate of the two.

In the end, if you don't believe in a god, it's unlikely that you would believe in Lucifer either. That's fine. My beliefs don't require you to believe them. It is more important for you to figure out your own path than for you to share mine.

Peace with you.

[Mariana]

98. Thank you.

What you wrote makes sense to me. I appreciate it.

[Prophet 451]

308. You're very welcome n/t

[MineralMan]

71. Nonexistent.

[struggle4progress]

75. I believe in the God who says "If you really want to worship me, then love your neighbor"

[trotsky]

76. Does believing in that god mean you actually have to do it? n/t

[struggle4progress]

77. No, it just means I have to try very seriously to do it: if I fall short now and then --

if (say) I get pissed off by various jackasses from time to time and hunt them down and have to hide their bodies in barrels of acid in abandoned buildings -- I must remember that's really not the proper way to practice my religion and must make continual conscientious efforts to reform, with faith in the healing power of forgiveness, because nobody is perfect

[trotsky]

82. So basically, you could be a total ass and it's ok?

Interesting.

Perhaps you could demonstrate what it's like to be a true Christian, and ask for forgiveness for any times you may not have acted like you were loving your neighbor? I mean, if there are any times that someone may have observed that you didn't live up to the ideals you claim to hold?

[struggle4progress]

83. Or, since Christianity is not your religion, perhaps I would do better to ignore

your summaries of what Christianity is or is not

[trotsky]

84. Oh, I apologize.

I thought asking for forgiveness, and being sincere about it, was something Christians did.

My bad. I hope you can forgive me.

[struggle4progress]

85. Maybe you should just give it a rest

[trotsky]

86. Again, I apologize.

Sorry for making you angry with my assumptions about Christians and how they approach the ideas of forgiveness and humility. I guess what others have told me was wrong, and I thank you for correcting them.

[johnnypneumatic]

192. if you used hydroflouric acid

it would totally dissolve the bodies and you wouldn't have to worry about hiding them

[Fumesucker]

89. Not short of cash n/t

[edhopper]

90. ???

[Fumesucker]

92. A line from a U2 song

The god I believe in isn't short of cash, Mr.

[edhopper]

93. Oh

Good one, like it.

[raccoon]

95. I don't believe in the God I was raised with. No way could God be all good AND all powerful.

I realized that maybe two days ago, at the gut level. You know how sometimes you can know something intellectually, then one day it hits you at a really deeper level.

At this point I'd have to say God is reality. And a Higher Power is your Higher Self.

[cbayer]

99. At first I though you had the temerity to repost this piece of disingenuous horse manure,

but now I see that someone just kicked it!

[edhopper]

100. Not disingenuous at all

I clearly stated my purpose was to be clearer about the God I am refuting.
And you of all people, who constantly tell us that atheist are not commenting about the God people actually believe in, now says we can't ask people to describe the God they believe in?

Questioning God is so abhorrent to you that we can't even ask for a precise idea of what someone thinks God is?

Yes, this thread is about the debate on the existence of God, it is a legitimate debate, sorry if that rankles you so much.

[cbayer]

102. I constantly tell people that they are not commenting on the god people actually believe in?

Where do you get that idea?

You made it perfectly clear that you wanted people to give you a definition that you could then dispose of.

I don't find questioning god abhorrent. I question every concept of god that I encounter.

But asking someone to provide some kind of precise definition so that you can knock it down is what is objectionable.

For every believer, there is a concept of god that you will never understand. Trying to knock it down in an attempt to disprove god is a foolish endeavor.

You will never disprove god to a believer in god. Why do you even try?

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Untrue.

"You will never disprove god to a believer in god. Why do you even try?"

I have certainly been able to disprove certain claims about a god that an individual had previously accepted as proof of that god's existence.

Which completely unwound his faith.

[cbayer]

112. Good for you! Notches in your belt, I suppose.

You've completely unwound someone's faith? Wow. The world is most definitely a better place.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. He thinks so.

I welcome change, redefinition, or correction of beliefs I hold true, when the evidence warrants, so he and I are in the same place, more or less.

[cbayer]

115. I am sure he does. Best of luck to both of you in your future crusades.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Thank you for your condescension

[cbayer]

117. You are most welcome.

[edhopper]

118. How dare you show someone he was wrong about something

I bet you try to show Republicans they are wrong about supply side economics, can't you let them believe what they want?

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Just trying to 'make the world a better place'.

Because, that's a snobbish/bad thing to do, apparently.

[edhopper]

120. But you think people giving up their beliefs

(of course you weren't asked the nature of those beliefs) makes the world better.
You can't prove that.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. The reason I found that sarcastic response so annoying is, it takes a very honest person to be willi

ng to critically re-examine foundational worldviews, and alter them, when the evidence they are aware of, changes.

That's hard. I would never belittle or minimize that. I have a great deal of respect for that man, not just because he's a friend, but because he is, to his core, honest, even when the truth is uncomfortable to him.

The world needs more of that, not less. Certainly it shouldn't be looked down on.


And bringing true, honest information to the attention of some people laboring under a misconception is somehow a negative? I don't even know what to do with that objection. That's actually mind-blowing to me. When I have an opportunity to help someone find and evaluate the truth on their own, I should not do it? Really?

What am I supposed to do with that?

[edhopper]

122. See it for what it is

An incoherent attack on rationality and progress.
Which you apparently did.

[cbayer]

127. Are you calling my response an incoherent attack on rationality and progress?

If you have something like that to say to me, you really should say it directly.

[skepticscott]

128. Since you have half the room on ignore

for daring to speak the truth to you, and for daring to undermine your agenda, it's quite ironic that you're now demanding to be responded to directly, cbayer. People have been trying to get you to engage on facts for a long time, but all you've done is stick your fingers in your ears.

[rug]

177. That's ok, you have the other half on ignore.

[edhopper]

131. Okay

without knowing anything about what the person believed, or how AC engaged him, you condemned him for taking away a person's faith.
You obsession about about not confronting beliefs (and yes, you say challenge actions not beliefs) is the antithesis to rationality and progress. At least that is what I believe. How's that?

[cbayer]

126. "When I have the opportunity to help someone find and evaluate the truth on their own"

What truth is that? Do you really think you are in possession of the truth.

I could re-write this entire post as a christian evangelizer and change virtually nothing.

But then your mission is mighty!

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Actually, it was the truth, based on peer reviewed archeological findings and geology.

But you didn't ask for specifics, before you passed judgment, did you?

[cbayer]

168. Oh, I don't doubt that. It was the "completely unwound his faith" that I passed judgement on.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. But he did that, not me.

His faith was built on a foundation of untruths. Demonstrable untruths.

I knocked those down (in the process of him evangelizing TO ME, to convert me to Christianity I might add) and he started questioning, and eventually abandoned his former faith.

I make no apologies for that. There is nothing wrong with that. He engaged ME freely on the subject. He held up certain things as undeniable proof of certain divine intervention. I knocked them down one by one with sound evidence.

I took out the foundation, but HE bulldozed the house. Not me.

[cbayer]

125. See, here is the difference.

You can't show that someone is wrong about their belief in god. You can show that someone is wrong about supply side economics using data.

But don't let that get in the way of your snarkfest.

Did they give you the secret decoder ring yet?

[skepticscott]

129. Oh, so when you called creationists

"A bunch of dumbasses" you weren't saying that their religious beliefs were wrong? You weren't saying that based on data? When you mock Mormons, as you've proudly declared that you do, is it because you're sure their religious beliefs are wrong and silly, or are you just being unkind?

[trotsky]

130. LOLOLOL

"You can show that someone is wrong about supply side economics using data."

Well gosh, why didn't anyone think of doing that before??

[edhopper]

132. Any belief about

any god?
If God is involved in the belief you can never show that the person is wrong in any way. that is your stance?

[cbayer]

133. I didn't condemn him, I sarcastically congratulated him.

I would do the same for any evangelizer who claimed to have saved another soul.

These converters leave me cold.

[edhopper]

135. Bullshit

your snarky response was meant as an insult and disapproval for what he did. You have no idea how AC engaged this person, did the person come to him for advice, you have no clue. So to say he evangelized is crap.
Don't try to walk it back now.

[cbayer]

137. Yes, it was. I don't think much of evangelizing whether it is to convert or deconvert.

AC has often talked of his attempts to save people from their beliefs. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend him, though. He is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

You seem to be always looking for the wrong in what I say. Why is that?

[edhopper]

139. You asked me to respond

I did joke with him, at you expense, but I have explained to you why I think that.
You think challenging religious beliefs is wrong, I call doing it progress. We disagree.

[cbayer]

164. I understand the game, edhopper.

There are points granted for attacking or challenging me. I am very hopeful that that is not where you are going.

I don't think challenging religious beliefs is wrong and not sure where you got that idea. I am very much in favor of challenging beliefs when they lead to positions or actions that impinge on the rights of others.

But challenging belief in a deity is wrong, because no one has any evidence to back up that challenge. It's neither rational nor progressive.

[AtheistCrusader]

191. But I didn't do that. You inferred or invented that.

I freely admit I cannot disprove the existence of a god.

You truly misunderstood my original post.

[edhopper]

226. And we disagree about that

I think we can challenge any belief, especially if it deals with the supernatural. And I don't think that God is beyond debate.
Especially when someone says he has had an effect on the physical Universe (which most believers do).
I also think belief in the supernatural and other magical thinking holds mankind Back, so yes, it is about progress for me.
So to recap, challenging the existence of a diety is the right thing to do IMO.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. "You seem to be always looking for the wrong in what I say."

[cbayer]

165. Not sure what that means exactly, but I am going to assume it means that

you are saying something about how I challenge you frequently.

There is no irony in that. I freely admit that I challenge you often and frequently find fault in what you say.

And I've explained to you why.

[AtheistCrusader]

181. I'm referring to the assumptions you make about how I

'evangelize'.

Which is, of course, nothing of the sort.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. Really? Well that's nice. Ignorance of one of the effects I illustrated for him

leaves the nation of Israel critically vulnerable and under-prepared for a large earthquake.
Shame on me for 'evangelizing' the fact that Israel too, has fault lines.

I guess I should have remained sensitive to his belief that only god could have destroyed the walls of Jericho per the story in the bible, because there are (in his former belief) no earthquakes or no earthquakes of significant power, in Israel.

A somewhat widespread meme that is going to get a lot of people killed someday.

[cbayer]

166. What? Perhaps I misread your comment, but it seemed pretty clear to me that you

were talking about disabusing him of his beliefs and faith in general.

I didn't know you were just talking about Israel and earthquakes. So convincing him that an earthquake took down the walls of Jericho caused him to abandon his general religious beliefs?

I guess he was on very shaky ground to begin with (pun intended).

I don't think Judaism is really attached to the belief that there can't be any earthquakes in Israel. They are frequent and well documented. Where do you get the idea that the state just ignores or denies this and, therefore, doesn't take appropriate safety measures?

[AtheistCrusader]

186. You might want to read what I said again, because I said nothing of the sort.

"I have certainly been able to disprove certain claims about a god that an individual had previously accepted as proof of that god's existence."


"So convincing him that an earthquake took down the walls of Jericho caused him to abandon his general religious beliefs?"

I showed him natural processes that could have resulted in each of the things he had claimed were undeniable proof of divine intervention.

HE connected the dots after that.

The earthquake issue is an on-going public awareness campaign/struggle. I don't know exactly why it is specific to (or perhaps it is not) Israel, but I do hear it a lot from evangelicals. It's some part of what they 'know' or are told about Israel that isn't so. I don't think it's intrinsic to Judaism. Certainly when I hear the evidence of the walls of Jericho offered as proof of godly intervention, the person I am discussing it with will invariably try to dismiss even the potential of a natural earthquake as a potential cause.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/erdan-israel-not-prepared-for-major-quake/

My friend insisted that it had to be harmonics/god, and that an earthquake in that area was impossible. I demonstrated otherwise. Archaeologists and geologists working the site have found strong evidence of a powerful quake around 1400bc.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. You have such a narrow view of what is possible.

Have you ever asked a believer for a list of reasons why they find their god to be the only possible solution to XYZ to lead them to believe?

Often there are metrics like 'Only god could have produced X'.

When people hold ideas like that, one only need show that X can be produced by other things. I don't even rule out the possibility that a god COULD have done it, or COULD have used one of those mechanisms I point out to do it. It's usually enough of a gut check right there, that there are possibilities they have not considered.

Faith can be a flimsy or brittle thing.

[cbayer]

167. Flimsy and brittle really works to the advantage of the evangelizing crusader.

Sorry, but if I were a believer, I would avoid you like the plague.

[AtheistCrusader]

188. Really? I find most believers are pretty confident in their faith.

I find it amusing you recoil from even the hypothetical possibility I might disprove some thing you believed to be only possible through god.

Especially since you have emphasized you are not a believer.

I don't have to go looking for these people either, they come to me.

[skepticscott]

218. For some reason, this one is scared to death

of even the idea that a religious person could or should be disabused of false or dangerous beliefs. Even beliefs that she herself has mocked and denigrated on this board. Even if they've said they're happier for having been so enlightened.

Why is quite a mystery, especially for one who claims to be an atheist. Oops.. Excuse me..non-believer. What is it about a search for the truth that scares some people so much that they have to argue for the legitimacy of religion against all reason?

[trotsky]

101. "disingenuous horse manure"

Kinda like your Sagan thread?

[riqster]

103. I believe in a creator who doesn't take an active, interventionist role in our lives.

We were given stewardship of the Earth and will be judged as individuals based on our actions. Personal responsibility and all that.

In my opinion, were there an interventionist God, we'd see lots more children not starving or being massacred, and lots more guilty grownups being smitten by lightning bolts or such.

[edhopper]

104. Did your God create the Universe?

I ask because some with similar beliefs think he was created with the Universe, then set things in motion for life, man, etc...

[riqster]

106. Good question, and of course no one really knows.

I studied a lot of Plato and Aristotle, along with other philosophers. The notion of a single first cause seems more likely than a number of coincidental simultaneous first causes, per Occam's Razor.

So it seems most likely that a creator created our universe. Now, as to who created the creator, one can get caught in an infinite loop rather quickly with such speculations, so I don't bother with such exercises. We are here in this universe, and have jobs to do while we are here.

My gig is to be a better Riqster today than I was yesterday. And to repeat that process every day of my life. That is a big enough bit of work right there.

[edhopper]

108. Thanks for the reply

The interesting thing about your belief is it is similar to existentialism, except for the belief in some form of God.

[riqster]

109. Quite true. Religion and philosophy have a lot of touchpoints.

[CanonRay]

105. The collective consciousness of all living things

[edhopper]

113. So you see consciousness

as something that exists outside the brain?

[CanonRay]

124. Yes, there is a connection between all life

And that collective consciousness is "God".

[edhopper]

134. So did God arise

as life did in the Universe. Or was this consciousness there and shaped the universe.

(I don't see any evidence for your beliefs, but I find it interesting)

[CanonRay]

138. "God' isn't a separate entity

just a term that refers to the life force in all things. So I think the collective life force arose as life started on earth (and elsewhere I would presume). You can call God nature, or The Mother, or whatever you want. I don't think the universe was shaped by anything, just arose out of natural processes which we do not yet fully understand. But I believe there is a connection between all living things which arose from this same process.

I find it difficult to put this all into words.

[edhopper]

140. You explained fine

I understand the concept.

[hrmjustin]

136. I will say I believe in a loving God of wonder and might.

I don't believe God decides what goes on here.

[edhopper]

141. But he has

Intervened in the past?

[hrmjustin]

142. Yes.

[edhopper]

143. And can he do so now?

Do you think it is worthwhile when people pray for God to act. Or does he allow things to just transpire as the will?

[hrmjustin]

144. People's prayers are a conversation with God and is always worthwhile.

God gave us free will so we make our own faiths.

I pray to God for stength.

[edhopper]

146. I am not trying to trap you

And not questioning all prayer.
Your statement was vague. I am sure "wonder and might" have meaning to you, put they are not very precise words.
You said God doesn't decide in things. But I suppose you think he does at times.
So I was just asking if he does act at times now and if he intervenes when people pray for him to.

[hrmjustin]

147. I do not limit his powers but from watching things I just don't think he decides things.

I find it hard to think he would cause suffering on purpose.

[edhopper]

149. I see

It is a hard question as to why though.
I have heard them all from free will to rewards in the next life.
But for me none of them seem adequate.

[hrmjustin]

150. Adequate to believe?

[edhopper]

152. Adequate

Explanations for a powerful loving God to allow suffering.

[hrmjustin]

154. Well I can't help you there. You either believe it or you don't.

[edhopper]

155. Yes

[cleanhippie]

156. Do you never ask yourself this question?

Why would an all-powerful, loving God allow suffering?

If not, why not? If you do, what conclusion do you come to?

[hrmjustin]

157. Yes I ask myself this question.

Conclusion! When I die I assume I will find out.

[cleanhippie]

158. So you come to no conclusion at all?

And you find that satisfactory?

[hrmjustin]

159. Life is ver complicated as is belief.

Is it satisfactory? I don't know.

[cleanhippie]

160. I didn't ask if you know, I asked if you came to a conclusion.

In the absence of a rational conclusion, how do you reconcile all the suffering in the world where there is an all-powerful, loving god?

[hrmjustin]

161. My conclusion is it is unlikely God decides what events taks shape in the world.

I believe he gave us freewill and because we have freewill we have the ability to make good and bad choices.

Wht he did this and why suffering is allowed I do not know. I do believe when we die his love brings us to his heavenly kingdom.

[cleanhippie]

162. Were your beliefs shown to be true, I would find them depressingly sad.

I would say that for ANY allegedly all-powerful, loving god. Not just the one you believe in, so please don't take offense.

At best, if there is a god of the sort you and many others believe in, it's answer to my question had better be "Because I'm not all-powerful, and I couldn't do anything about it." Anything less would negate any notion of "loving", as that's like a husband who hits his wife saying "I do it because I love you."

[hrmjustin]

163. What are you personal beliefs if I might ask?

[cleanhippie]

169. What are my personal beliefs about what?

I need you to be specific, please.

[hrmjustin]

170. God amd life after death.

[cleanhippie]

172. I don't believe in the commonly held concept of "god" or an "afterlife".

[hrmjustin]

173. Do you think there is no more atter death or it is a wait and see thing?

[cleanhippie]

174. I've seen nothing even remotely convincing that would support the idea of an "afterlife".

I'm certainly open to taking a look at new evidence tht may come in, though.

[hrmjustin]

175. Thank you.

[rug]

178. Do you have an uncommonly held concept of god or an afterlife?

[cleanhippie]

180. No. I was an effort to be specific to the topic at hand.

[cleanhippie]

182. Perhaps you missed this part of my question.

In the absence of a rational conclusion, how do you reconcile all the suffering in the world where there is an all-powerful, loving god?

I'd appreciate an answer to that.

[hrmjustin]

183. It is very hard to.

Saying it is God's will just doesn't cut it.

[cleanhippie]

184. So how do you reconcile that?

In the absence of a rational conclusion, how do you reconcile all the suffering in the world where there is an all-powerful, loving god?

[hrmjustin]

185. Christ tells us God is love. I take him at his word.

That is how I reconcile it.

[cleanhippie]

187. How is such suffering considered "love"?

[hrmjustin]

189. It is a contridiction.

Why God created things the way he did I do not know.

[cleanhippie]

193. So what makes such an entity that allows or is powerless to stop suffering worthy of worship?

This is that part I really don't understand.

I can understand why some believe in the existence of a god, but why would such a god require and be worthy of our worship and respect?

[hrmjustin]

194. Required? I don't think God requires us to bow down to him.

I do it because I acknowledge he is my God but I don't feel required to do it.

[cleanhippie]

195. Isn't believing in and worshiping god required to get into heaven?

An answer to the contrary would be news to me and billions of others.


Aside from that, why would such a god be worthy of our worship and devotion?

[hrmjustin]

196. Depends on who you ask.

[cleanhippie]

197. Are you denying that a basic tenet of your faith is the requirement to believe and worship your god?

Seriously?

[hrmjustin]

198. It is how you interpet it. I personally don't believe in hell and think most if not all make it to

heaven.

[cleanhippie]

199. Aside from that, why would such a god be worthy of our worship and devotion?

If there is no hell and most don't get into heaven, why even bother worshiping such a god? What purpose does it serve?

[hrmjustin]

200. Interesting qeuestion.

I pray to God for strength of spirit. I worship God because I believe he is there.

[cleanhippie]

201. What do you mean by "strength of spirit"?

What is that, exactly?

[hrmjustin]

202. I pray to God to give me inner strength or to help me find my inner strength.

[cleanhippie]

203. Inner strength to do what?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but these are very ambiguous terms. I'm trying to understand what you mean. If you are having trouble defining it, perhaps an example would clarify your meaning.

[hrmjustin]

204. Strength to get through life.

Like I would pray for my mother , her surgeon, and myself to have strength when she has her surgeries.

[cleanhippie]

205. Do you always get it when you pray for it?

[hrmjustin]

206. Usually I feel it.

Usually when I am in rushed or serious situations my prayers are very short and to the point.

I am more of a doer than someone who prays.

[cleanhippie]

207. Is it possible that your "inner strength" is always there and is not something to be given

Or withheld? And if so, why ask(pray) for it?

[hrmjustin]

208. Of course. If there is no God and I am talking to myself then I am calling on my inner strength.

I however do think there is a God.

[cleanhippie]

209. Has there ever been a time when you didn't get this "inner strength"?

[hrmjustin]

210. I woukd say my sekf doubts take over.

[cleanhippie]

211. So self doubt is lack of inner strength?

[hrmjustin]

212. I would say just because I find my inner strength with the help of God does not mean my

self doubts go away.

[cleanhippie]

213. I was just using your example. Can you better explain a time when you failed to find your inner

Strength and what the negative outcome of that lack of inner strength was?

[hrmjustin]

214. Off hand I can't think of one now.

[cleanhippie]

215. To use the example of your mother and her surgeons that you gave..

Do you suppose that others that have found themselves in the same position have prayed for the same thing you did only to have things go badly?

[hrmjustin]

216. Yes but things going badly is not Gods fault.

Things go badly because of mistakes and unforseen events.

[cleanhippie]

217. Or a lack of inner strength?

To me, this sounds like a sports player who after winning the big game thanks god for giving them the strength to win, but after a loss blames it on mistakes and unforeseen events.

How does god get credit when things go in one's favor and humans get the blame when things don't?

[hrmjustin]

219. Remember that I believe people make things happen.

[cleanhippie]

220. Then why pray for assistance from your god?

If your god doesn't give or withhold "inner strength" or assistance of any kind, why pray for it?

[hrmjustin]

221. Because it is a personal relationship with God.

[cleanhippie]

222. But if it has no tangible effect on reality, it's not necessary, right?

I get that you may do it for personal reasons (that I must admit make no sense to me at all), but if it's not required by your god and if your god doesn't give or withhold it, and it has no effect on the outcome of anything in this realm of existence, can we agree that it is unnecessary?

[hrmjustin]

223. In my opinion it is not required.

[cleanhippie]

224. So help me understand, after reviewing this conversation as a whole...

How any of these beliefs meet even the minimum requirement to be considered rational?

[hrmjustin]

225. My faith is my faith. If another considers it not rational that is their issue.

[cleanhippie]

227. Can we agree that there is a common definition of the word "rational"?

When I google the word, this is what comes up:

ra·tion·al
ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious, shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent

This seems to be a commonly accepted definition. So unless you disagree with the meaning of this word, help me understand how these beliefs you have described to me even remotely begin to meet this definition.

[hrmjustin]

228. I am sorry but I am not going to.

[cleanhippie]

230. Why not? We've been having a perfectly civil and productive conversation so far.

Why stop now? Am I being unreasonable or something?

[hrmjustin]

231. We both know that I am not going to be able to do this.

It is not you, I just am not able to do this.

[cleanhippie]

232. Being unable to is something I understand.

Do you find it offensive if someone calls your beliefs "irrational"? Why or why not?

[hrmjustin]

233. I have at times said my faith is not necessarily logical.

I am not taking offense to your asking it.

[cleanhippie]

234. I appreciate that, but that's not what I asked you.

Do you find it offensive if someone calls your beliefs "irrational"? Why or why not?

[hrmjustin]

236. As long as it is not being hurled as an insult then I have to say no.

[cleanhippie]

238. Does saying "your beliefs are irrational" meet that?

After this conversation, is it not reasonable to state that your beliefs are irrational? I don't mean that as an insult, but as a statement of fact.

[hrmjustin]

239. I know you did not mean it as an insult.

You were being honest.

[cleanhippie]

240. Can we agree then that by definition, these beliefs are irrational?

[hrmjustin]

241. We can agree that many believers and non-believers would say so.

[cleanhippie]

242. But I'm asking you, not anyone else.

Are these beliefs, by definition, irrational.

[hrmjustin]

243. By definition no.

[cleanhippie]

244. But if you are unable to explain how these beliefs ARE rational...

Doesn't it follow that they are irrational?

Irrational is defined as:

ir·ra·tion·al
iˈraSHənl/
adjective
1.
not logical or reasonable.
synonyms: unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable; More
antonyms: reasonable, logical
not endowed with the power of reason.

How can these beliefs not meet this definition if one is unable to demonstrate that they are, in fact, rational?
If I'm wrong on this, please help me understand how.

[hrmjustin]

245. I am not saying you are wrong.

[cleanhippie]

247. Then what are you saying?

If I'm not wrong, do you agree? If not, why?

[hrmjustin]

248. I am saying it is a matter of opinion and opinions change.

[cleanhippie]

249. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of definition.

And looking at the beliefs you've described objectively, and in the absence of a rational explanation of them, they are by definition, irrational. What part of that do you dispute?

[hrmjustin]

250. I am not disputing you.

[cleanhippie]

251. Then what are you doing?

You seem to be going out of your way not to answer me. A simple "I agree" or "I disagree", accompanied by your reasoning is all that's required.

Can you do that?

[hrmjustin]

255. I do not have a definate opinion either way. I can certainly see your argument.

[cleanhippie]

257. What's the barrier causing you to not having an agreement on the definition of a word?

You seem to be becoming intentionally obtuse now. There is no opinion being asked of you. You either agree on the definition or you don't.

A simple "I agree" or "I disagree", accompanied by your reasoning for doing so is all that's required. Why are you finding this so difficult?

[hrmjustin]

259. because it is not as easy for me than it is for you.

To say my faith is irrational would mean I am and I am not.

[cleanhippie]

311. I urge you to consider the points made during this conversation

And when you are ready, let me know your answer.

Thank you for your honesty and your candor. Perhaps our conversation today will serve as a template for others here to follow.

[hrmjustin]

317. Yes it is was a pleasant conversation and look foward to taking it up again.

[edhopper]

318. Thank you both for the civil and thoughtful discourse

In this "disenginious piece of horse shit" of a thread.

[hrmjustin]

319. Your welcome my friend.

[rug]

176. Suffering reveals much more about humans than it does God.

[cleanhippie]

179. I agree. Real people facing real problems reveals more about reality than an ambiguous concept.

[rug]

253. You may agree but you do not understand.

Debating Epicurus while people are inflicting misery on each other is stupid.

[okasha]

261. This is another post that deserves a rec all on its own.

Human suffering--at least the type of suffering inflicted on humans by other humans--comes with our genetic inheritance. Like chimpanzees, we are a species that abuses individuals, commits murder and makes war. Human exceptionalism, whether it's based in a special creation or the truly silly notion that evolution as a "social" species has cured us of those impulses, has no basis in fact.

[edhopper]

263. So actively trying to minimize suffering

instead of doing something useless like spending a morning in a large building and praying to someone about it would be more advantageous?

[hrmjustin]

267. Useless? that is insulting.

[edhopper]

275. Not meant for you justin

It was a barb aimed at an insulting reply and a high five that followed it.
We've discussed your ideas about prayer and this subject.

[hrmjustin]

276. oh ok. But that hour is not useless.

[edhopper]

278. You don't see it that way.No.

And I accept that.
Re-read the several post previous to mine and you will get the gist of the exchange.
Or not, because it is all just hissing.

[hrmjustin]

280. Ok my apologies. I should have read the whole exchange.

[edhopper]

283. No problem

[okasha]

303. No need to choose.

Most people are quite capable of doing both.

What you're failing to understand is that many people derive both comfort and determination to minimize suffering from their spiritual practice.

Oscar Romero certainly wasn't motivated to oppose the Salvadotan death squads by Epicurus.

[edhopper]

304. Why can't one discuss Epicurus

And also work to prevent human suffering?

[okasha]

307. No need to choose.

If discussing Epicurus motivates you to alleviate suffering, go for it.

[edhopper]

309. So why did you applaud and rec

a post that said such a thing was stupid?

[okasha]

320. Wrong question.

I rec'd and applauded rug's post because he's right.

I chose to respect your point of view instead of ridiculing it. You may be the Paraguayan Navy, but if Epicurus floats your boat, bon voyage.

[edhopper]

321. You just contradicted

Yourself. You told me there is nothing wrong with debating Epicurus and helping with suffering.
And now say he was right to say that debating Epicurus while people suffer is stupid.
Which one is it. Do you agree it's stupid, or think there is nothing wrong with it.
You can't have it both ways.

[okasha]

322. Read more carefully.

I said that if Epicurus motivates you to relieve sufffering, that's fine. Go for it. Using him as a supercilious talking point on a message board to polish your own ego while real suffering is occurring is trivializes that suffering because you're also reducing it to a talking point.

[edhopper]

323. If you want to interpret this as just a talking point about Epicurus:

"Real people facing real problems reveals more about reality than an ambiguous concept"

Even though he did not mention the philosopher, I guess you can, though that is just your inference.
Seems to me it is you who is doing nothing more than trying to score talking points.
And congratulating a post which calls another post stupid seems to be much more of an ego polishing thingie.

That's all, if you want a final word, be my guest.

[upaloopa]

171. How do you do that? Do you first have to

invent this god or latch on to some other person's invention?
I don't think we can know of a god. We maybe experience something real or imagined and label it god or interaction with god. That is what I do but I can't be certain of what I am experiencing. I don't think it is really that important to know anyway. I think it is a distraction from some more important ideas such as interconnectedness of all of us with everything else.

[edhopper]

235. This thread came about

because I was told multiple times on multiple threads the God I was arguing doesn't exist is not the God people believe in. I was only attacking the literal, fundie God. I actually don't thunk that was true, I have seen the same critique of Dawkins, Hitchens etc... but anyone who read The God delusion would know it's not true.
So I started this thread to to get a better idea of people's concept of God and see for myself if i had been challenging something other than the real beliefs people have.

[atreides1]

229. Goddess!

The Morrighan...Celtic Goddess of War and Sovereignty...sometimes considered a triple Goddess, but more often a sister of Badb and Macha!

And I don't have a "Holy Book" that I use!

[edhopper]

237. Do you think

the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, or just not pray to him?

[Maedhros]

246. I don't believe in God.

The closest analogy to God that I would posit would be the Self as described in the Upanishads: I am my Self, and simultaneously I am coterminous with the Self, which is everything.

[edhopper]

256. I had to look up coterminous

still don't know what that quote means. Or should i say, what is meant by it.

[Maedhros]

268. "Coterminous with" roughly means "encompassing".

The Self is all of the universe, everywhere. The Self is also me, my soul, my identity. The Self is both, simultaneously.

[edhopper]

269. I did look it up

Is it saying were are all there is, as in existentialism? Or that we are part of a larger consciousness that includes everyone, which is sort of buhdist I guess?

[Maedhros]

274. It's from the Upanishads, which predates Hinduism/Buddhism.

I'm no expert, but I imagine the same ideas in the Upanishads are echoed in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies.

[edhopper]

277. So you think there is more to reality than

Just the physical Universe. But no specific diety?

[Maedhros]

284. Not really. We are an inseparable part of the infinite universe.

"Physical" in this context means, generally, "observable," and it's a given that there are aspects of the universe that humanity is currently unable to observe. In that sense yes, there is more to the universe than is currently observable.

I try and keep my ethos simple: we are part of the universe, and it is part of us. You must forgive me - I was educated in geochemical thermodynamics and work as a high-tech fraud investigator, and I'm no expert metaphysicist. My explanations thus fall short.

[edhopper]

287. Okay

I'll try to be more specific. Others who have said things like you believe that consciousness can exist outside the body, that the connection to all things means that people can communicate on another plane, some would call it a spiritual plane. These are things that could be called supernatural. I am just trying to figure out if things of this nature are a part of your beliefs.

[Maedhros]

296. I have tried (and failed) to have an out-of-body experience.

While I will not outright deny the possibility of such experiences, I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that such things have happened.

I take the same view toward, for example, ghosts: I accept that such things may be possible, but until sufficient evidence of their existence is produced I remain skeptical.

[edhopper]

298. Thanks

Sounds like you are more agnostic within your own belief structure.

[Maedhros]

300. I should add the qualification that I do not ascribe 100% to any given philosophy.

I thought the concept of the Self comes closest to what I would call "God", but by no means is that a complete answer. I prefer to look at all philosophies and religions and learn from them what I can. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of God, religions represent long-held cultural beliefs - some harmful, some valuable - and it's important that we examine and understand them.

[edhopper]

305. That is probably a good philosophy

Itself.

[BlueJazz]

252. OK

[edhopper]

258. OK

what?

[BlueJazz]

260. I left the message blank....same as my feelings.

[edhopper]

262. No feelings about God

because the concept holds no interest to you? Or because it is not something you want to discuss here?

[BlueJazz]

266. Mainly because I'm an atheist and I don't think about a God but....

I respect the concept and have no ill feelings about it.
As a Physicist, I have seen strange things that I thought (at one time) were impossible.

[edhopper]

272. So this thread wasn't meant for you

But I appreciate the post and reply.

[bluestateguy]

254. An Angry Conservative White Man in the sky

He's for executions, jailing gays, tax cuts for corporations and the rich, hates labor unions and thinks workers should know their place. He's against welfare in any form, regulations on businesses, spending trillions on the military and American leadership in the world, by military force if necessary. He Chose America as special and Exceptional.

He thinks all non-Protestant, non-evangelicals are going hell, no matter what.

Wives should submit graciously to the headship of their husbands.



(If I need to put a sarcasm icon here, then you are beyond obtuse)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

264. Me. You, him, them. That rock, that tree

and everything else.

My God is the entire universe.

Refute that, buddy

[edhopper]

265. The natural laws

as Einstein said? Or are you saying there is a supernatural connection to all things as others have offered here?
Is there an overall intelligence behind or within this entire universe you see as God? (not intelligent creatures in it, but and intelligence that permeates it?)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

270. 'supernatural' is just a way of saying 'I don't know'.

Everything that exists is natural, we just don't always understand it yet. We tell ourselves stories about things we don't understand, in trying to understand them. Mostly, we're wrong. I don't think I've seen any evidence for any sort of dissociated external intelligence, nor for anything 'beyond' whatever real 'natural laws' there are. If I 'wake up' after I die and find myself being judged, I'm going to feel awfully foolish, though. If that's the case, I can only hope it's the black desert I find myself crossing.

[edhopper]

271. Thanks

I can't refute any of that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

273. You could if you were a solipsist! ;) nt

[edhopper]

281. I should say

I see no need to refute that to be grammatically correct.

[Louisiana1976]

279. The God I believe in is not a human being but a force--a force that makes nature run

smoothly. It is why the seasons are in the order that they are and why the earth turns while revolving around the sun.

[edhopper]

286. A force beyond the physical and laws

of nature and the Universe?

[think]

282. love

[edhopper]

285. Love exists

Outside the of man? (and maybe other animals) and is a force on it's own?
Or it is the thing we should adpireto within our limited existence?

[think]

290. God is love and He or She is the river that the spirit of love flows from

Just my belief based upon things that happened to me that I can explain but don't expect others to believe. Wasn't looking for God and would probably be agnostic but shit happened and I believe.

Either way; whether it is existential or from the divine it is a good thing to aspire to.

[edhopper]

292. So God is an entity of some sort?

Yes either way it is worthwhile.

[Peacetrain]

289. That is an impossible request..

You admit you want to refute the existence of God.. so why ask someone something that is just an exercise. People could give you a gazillion answers..you are not really interested in them, just a toy for the cat to play with as they say.. and since you are an avowed atheist no reason to be interested in their beliefs...

[edhopper]

293. I can get why you would reply that way

Please read response #235 to understand the context of my question.

[Peacetrain]

294. Well good luck in your quest

[edhopper]

297. Thanks

I have gotten many interesting responses.

[AtheistCrusader]

299. I'm an avowed non-cannibal. That doesn't mean I don't take an interest in the beliefs of cannibals.

Especially before they take an interest in me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

301. This knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain unto it.

[edhopper]

310. The knowledge of who or what God is?

Are you saying there is a God, but he is unknowable?
If so do you follow any religion you think is closer to the truth?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

312. Honestly, I haven't a clue.

[edhopper]

313. Not to pin you down

But would you say then you are more an agnostic or a believer that there is something bor someone?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

314. Agnostic, I guess.

Which literally means not knowing. But it doesn't bother me to not know.

[edhopper]

315. Thanks