God

Troy

31 Seconds
I do not believe God* exists. However, I know many people who do.

I always ask them, “Why do you believe that?”, because to me that’s the most interesting question. I figure the default state is to not believe, and that something happens in ones life that makes one a believer: Tragedy, some desire, some miracle... Most of the time the answers I receive are illogical, meaning that the stated reason for the belief does not justify the belief.

So my question is, to the believers... What has happened in your life to cause you to believe that at God exists? And just to be clear I am not trying to cause trouble or be a jerk. I am genuinely curious.

* “God” being defined as some intelligent being outside of our natural world, who judges and makes things happen and such. And I am not saying that he definitely does not exist, I am just saying I have never found evidence or reason to believe, just like I don’t believe a purple bunny lives in my freezer, though I guess it could be true...
 

Melchior

Taking History Too Far
As much of a committed atheist as I am, I'm pretty sure that the default position is to believe myself. I read an interview with a guy, Daniel C. Dennett, who was explaining the evolutionary usefullness of belief (he didn't himself) and it made for a compelling case. He wrote a book called Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon which looked fascinating but I haven't bought yet.
 

DigitalDjigit

Honky Tonk Woman
The default state is belief if only because the majority of the world are believers and so their kids will be too.

It's the easiest explanation for why things happen. As humans we tend to see motives behind everything. So if you win the lottery it's because someone wanted you to win.

People feel their special and there must be someone out there to recognize their specialness so they create a God to believe in.
 

swears

preppy-kei
"Why in a world trembling with faith and fear, should you want things to be more theological rather than less..."

Martin Amis on Bush's fundamentalism and Saddam's secularism.

W A T C H
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
For me, because the space exists for God to exist, and as much as I was an atheist, it came down to the idea that that the space ( in my head, in the universe, either/both ) for that concept, that belief, that thing, was actually there, so I saw no reason not to go 'oh well, there we go then'. It's much harder work - and much less real - to not believe in it, somehow. I don't think about it much though and certainly don't think about it being a great beardy white man wot created the universe. No sirree.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
The question I ask is what level of belief do the billions of "religious" people have- in two senses...

Firstly: In terms of a revelatory relation with the sublime (in many cases God or Gods)

Secondly: In terms of an active participation in scholarly existence (ie- a proper understanding of the "texts" of their religion)

In essence whether people are generally culturally religious, or religious in a more interesting sense-- as outside of these factors it would appear that it is little better than laziness that people hold on to beliefs... its not belief that is the problem but belief without an actual foundation in either form of understanding (of what they purport to believe).
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
God (stupid version):

Who is the Author? Is it me? Is it HIM? Is it Ghostface?

(Sorry Michael, had to post it. Drunk God!!!!)
 

budub

la di da
The question I ask is what level of belief do the billions of "religious" people have- in two senses...

Firstly: In terms of a revelatory relation with the sublime (in many cases God or Gods)

Secondly: In terms of an active participation in scholarly existence (ie- a proper understanding of the "texts" of their religion)

In essence whether people are generally culturally religious, or religious in a more interesting sense-- as outside of these factors it would appear that it is little better than laziness that people hold on to beliefs... its not belief that is the problem but belief without an actual foundation in either form of understanding (of what they purport to believe).

i wouldn't say it's laziness

i think that many people have the need to believe in a higher power. to believe in an existence more infinite than all else. they need to be reassured that there is some type of order among chaos, even if that order is that there is no order. many people need the higher power to resemble human form so that they can relate. organized religion provides structure. it also often designates places of worship for people to share their spirituality with likeminds, where their values and beliefs can be richened and reinforced.

i think that at the end of the day, people want to wash themselves of misgivings, take the world off their back, and put their faith in something stable yet unworldly profound. people need somewhere to invest their faith. and because one human being with no supernatural powers is vulnerable to so very much on this earth, the faith is placed with a higher power. people need to believe in a universal order, and if they do not choose organized religion, they are often likely to choose some other form of spirituality or faith. whether that is faith in humanity, mathematics, nature, or some other form of universal structure.
 

budub

la di da
* “God” being defined as some intelligent being outside of our natural world, who judges and makes things happen and such. And I am not saying that he definitely does not exist, I am just saying I have never found evidence or reason to believe, just like I don’t believe a purple bunny lives in my freezer, though I guess it could be true...


if you are interested, you may want to look into the ideas behind Pantheism [think Walt Whitman, maybe even Transcendentalism ] and non-western religions. you'll find that God is not often viewed as some single entity or "intelligent being outside our natural world", and is actually a significant part of the natural world.
 

Woebot

Well-known member
one of my big problems with believing in the christian god (short of the whole submission/patriarchy thing) is that it necessarily entails believing in the devil. that seems counter-productive....
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"So my question is, to the believers... What has happened in your life to cause you to believe that at God exists?"
For Christianity at least the problem here seems to be that faith - by definition - demands belief without proof. To search for proof as a believer is against the tenets of the religion. This leads to utter frustration in dialogue between believers and unbelievers because the former begin from the position that God exists (and says that he does) and it it a sin to challenge this whereas the unbeliever (or agnostic) asks for proof or at least rational argument towards this position which is something that the believer is fundamentally unable to give. Discussions therefore degenerate to exhortations to believe without proof and a refusal to accept negative argument on the one hand and a demand for proof and refusal to accept faith on the other. I do not see how these positions can ever be reconciled.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
if you are interested, you may want to look into the ideas behind Pantheism [think Walt Whitman, maybe even Transcendentalism ] and non-western religions. you'll find that God is not often viewed as some single entity or "intelligent being outside our natural world", and is actually a significant part of the natural world.

Quite right. One of the tenets of "paganism" is the immanence of "deity" (the experience of the divine, within / without and going back and forth between) in the fabric of the natural world, hence the universal evocation of deity within landscape.

Or to put it another way, deity is in Malkuth and in Tipareth.

Gek contrasts accurately different typologies of relationship with deity:
> Firstly: In terms of a revelatory relation with the sublime (in many cases God or Gods)
> Secondly: In terms of an active participation in scholarly existence
Or firstly, gnosis, as opposed to secondly, belief. Naturally I'm much more inclined to prefer the former. Islam is interesting in that it has historically emphasised scholarship and shariah over gnosis, principally because it is at its root such a pragmatic religion. Not that it entirely lacks gnostic tendencies - sufism is full of it, even mainstream Islamic sufism. However, apparently, the iranian revolution was much inspired by gnostic / sufi-inspired islam, not that that lasted long under the mullahs.

To address IdleRich's (quite accurate) point, the gnostic does not require faith, since their subjective experience is authentic (and, I have to say, replicable - you do the exercises, you get the results). The emotional and spiritual depth of that experience determines what level of subjective, personal attachment one has to the changed sense of reality that results. But there's a good side to "faith", I think, it doesn't always equate to fear.

[edit] Woebot - I think that if you want to pursue a christian spirituality, you can fairly easily find one that doesn't require belief in a discrete "Devil" figure. Or you can choose a non-Christian path. Or just enjoy a fulfilling spiritual life without necessarily submitting to a particular belief system.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"the gnostic does not require faith, since their subjective experience is authentic (and, I have to say, replicable - you do the exercises, you get the results)"
I'm not at all sure that you can say that so categorically. What exercises do you mean here? If I didn't already believe that they were going to work why would I do them?
 

john eden

male pale and stale
I'm not at all sure that you can say that so categorically. What exercises do you mean here? If I didn't already believe that they were going to work why would I do them?

I think he means you can get results from "the exercises" (whatever they are) without necessarily believing in the entire cosmology.

[For example, you can achieve a certain amount of insight from meditation without believing in buddhism or whatever.]

Which in my book means that the cosmology is bollocks, but there you go.

I would dispute that the results are always "replicable" as well because "you can never walk into the same river twice". Plus I doubt we are going to see any controlled experiments under laborotory conditions which have been peer-reviewed.

But y'know - Malkuth and Tipareth! Er, innit? :confused: :slanted: :p
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I think he means you can get results from "the exercises" (whatever they are) without necessarily believing in the entire cosmology."
OK, got you (him).
"I would dispute that the results are always "replicable" "
So would I, quite strongly.
Anyway, when I was talking about how difficult it is for believers to argue with rationalists I was speaking specifically about Christianity - I've certainly never heard of any replicable exercises in that religion. My point was that you either start from a position of faith which then means that everything follows from that, or else you don't and you want something to convince you which the believers will always be unable/unwilling to supply. You are therefore likely to remain an unbeliever - unless of course you have some kind of transcendental Damascene excperience, which is something I personally consider fairly unlikely.
 

ome

Well-known member
I would dispute that the results are always "replicable" as well because "you can never walk into the same river twice". Plus I doubt we are going to see any controlled experiments under laborotory conditions which have been peer-reviewed.
From an entheogen perspective results are very replicable
Harvard Psilocybin Project(1962) i.e. Leary giving convicts lsd25 in a church/non-church and seeing how many had numinious experiences.
Practicing this for spiritual/personal development seems is becoming popular in the uk and several groups have sprung up.

Although other studies have been done:
Religious Experience Research Centre (previously at Oxford 1969-2006) Has produced some intresting reads inc.
Dr. David Hay's book looking at common factors in language, and cause. Describing such experiences in the UK and concluding that action is often not motivated by the experience.
William James Varieties of Religious Experience (1901) Classic text
Spritual Neurology - Economist article looks at the dificulty of these experiments (from quick google as I havent resarched this in 10 years)
Gek contrasts accurately different typologies of relationship with deity:
> Firstly: In terms of a revelatory relation with the sublime (in many cases God or Gods)
> Secondly: In terms of an active participation in scholarly existence
Personally this is an intresting struggle for me, and to it I would add a third type that would be something like participating in cultural ritual.
In my opinion I believe in god because he is experienced by myself. But... I dont believe in a male diety. I understand that my interpretation is subject to the context of my culture and its language. The experience ranges from the subtle to the sublime. We(me & god) have gained so much from this that an active part of my childrens education is teach them to able to respond to a variety of experiences and value them as real. Its all about choice. Love is real!!
 
Last edited:
Top