By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
superchunk said:

Why do you feel threatened by someone's belief in a God? Your reaction to my original statement and your replies to above, exemplify that you have some religious zealot passion towards your belief in atheism.

What makes you think I feel threatened?
If someone is going to assert something that has no evidence to back it up... Then I am more than allowed to interject and call them out on their baseless assertions.

Atheism isn't a belief either, it's the lack of belief in your position as your position doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

superchunk said:

It's rather funny actually as I'm betting the negatives you like to portray about god-based belief systems is exactly the type of interaction you display here.

Why do you think it's a negative?
I think it is a positive thing to question anything which isn't backed by empirical evidence... Especially as religion tends to try and force it's views upon others, even hateful views. (I.E. The entire Anti-LGBT thing.)

superchunk said:

The creation story is vague in Hebrew TaNaKh (actually two distinct versions) and Qur'an and only literal in the variations of modern Bible translations. In the Qur'an specifically, it outlines a scenario that can be interpreted as mirroring the Big Bang Theory. My personal opinion is that I don't look to religious literature for Scientific answers or validation. The point behind these religious texts is to provide parables and guidance to human interaction with life. The zealot need for literal answers to everything from these books is where you have problems because they don't account for the many generations of story re-telling and translation that guarantees loss of context.

If it can be "interpreted" then it can be "misinterpreted".
These Abrahamic texts are written in such a way as to be as ambiguous as possible in order to avoid scrutiny... And to allow apologetic's to shift the tone in order to fit the current narrative of a debate.

If there is one take away from it all... Is that when an Apologetic sees that a piece of scripture lines up with science... They automatically hail it as truth... But when they see that a part of scripture doesn't align with science... It's shoved away and ignored or claim it's a lie.
They need to stop contradicting themselves, consistency is key.

These books were written by man and can and will be wrong on many things, but each claim needs to be scrutinized on an individual basis.

superchunk said:

Flat Earthers ignore blatant proof that celestial objects are in fact spherical naturally when forming from a gaseous or liquid state. Simple zero-G experimentation proves that without a doubt, if you choose to ignore the many centuries of visual data (older written accounts and modern photographic).

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the amount of Theists who deny Evolutionary Theory and Natural Selection. - There are even some in this thread.

Flat Earthers tend to leverage the Theistic view point to assert their Flat Earth hypothesis.
https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/flat-earth-scriptures/

Religion is part of the problem.

superchunk said:

Belief in God does not have blatant proof for or against. It is in fact, not logical or correct to compare the two as you did regardless of what basis some of these people use to define their inaccurate view points.

So do you believe in Unicorns, Dragons, Elves, Mermaids and the tooth fairy? Because we don't have proof for those either, so they must exist right?

This is why belief in God without evidence is NOT logical... If you are willing to believe in God, but none of the other things I have listed... Then your stance is hypocritical and thus illogical.


superchunk said:

I guess you could be right if you are extremely literal, which you are not literal in other replies, such as the flat-earth comparison. However the definitions above (taken from google) should suffice that I am correct in stating Atheism is a belief system on its own. Additionally, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist, means you are choosing to theorize or believe that the lack of evidence equates to non-existence of a god. For instance, there is currently no evidence that life exists outside of Earth, yet, I am certain it does as I'm willing to bet you do too. Interestingly though, there is, arguably, evidence of alien life from older civilizations just as there is for a God. (No, I don't think aliens build the pyramids or any other Earth structures)

False.
Atheism is a lack of belief because the burden of proof has not been met.
It's not an actual belief.

If you provide evidence for your claims, then I will most certainly no longer be an Atheist.

superchunk said:

Is it? Again, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist. Dragons did exist. They were misidentified dinosaur bones where imagination took over as if they were still living (modern example is Loch Ness).

If you think Dinosaurs that were catastrophically massive and could breathe fire and fly actually existed... Not sure what to tell you.


superchunk said:

There are volumes of human history from every civilization to have ever existed wrapped in the divine and spiritual. They have similar guidelines and themes, and even direct stories as well, even if their particular flavor of religious adherence varies. Just because Nordic peoples, Romans, Greeks, Asians, Indians, etc all formed divergent views of spiritual adherence and some were replaced with new interpretations, doesn't mean they were proven false. All it means is that human perception of God has continued to evolve including the belief that there is no god. Its not like Atheism is a solely modern evolution of a belief system as you suggest based on our progress in natural sciences.

There is a common theme between them all.

All religion came about to try and explain the un-explainable... As science has continued to progress, the un-explainable has become the explained.

We no longer assert that Thor, the God of Thunder exists anymore because we actually have a scientific understanding of thunder and lightning, just like we don't assert that Ra, the sun God exists because we now know that our Sun is a big giant ball of Gas burning in space.

Not to mention some of those religions contradict each other anyway.
There are 4,200 religions in the world... How do you know you picked the right one? Do you have evidence for that choice?


superchunk said:

The focus I take is in the commonality of these religious systems throughout history. They all share common bonds as guiding principles for their respective civilizations, even at the expense of other civilizations under the guise of cultural or national protectionism (generally abused doctrine by power-driven individuals). Sure, anyone who's ever stated they interacted with an angel, ghost, spirit, god, etc could be fabrication. But, in every story, there is always some thread of truth.

That just seems like typical apologetic reasoning.
I don't care if there is truth or not to a story... You need evidence, otherwise there is a chance you can be wrong.

superchunk said:

As our technology grows and we are able to learn and study the foundations of existence, we learn many scientific theories are debunked as well. It's all part of growing and evolving our understanding of life. For instance, we know can measure plant reaction and a sense of "knowing" that it is being culled and eaten. How much of life do we still have no understanding due to lack of the right technical solution?

Of course Scientific Theories are debunked/change/improve, it's a part of the scientific process.
Science isn't rigid like Religion... It can change and adapt as new evidence comes along.

.. And that is the key take away. Evidence.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
superchunk said:

I think there is evidence in the massive backlog of human spiritual experience. Literally every civilization has numerous ideologies and stories. I do think there is truth most stories. This is also hinted at the Noah story which is a common story shared by many different civilizations. Of course it can't be a literal global flood, but something had to have happened to drive so many common stories from so many different people and religions. You could argue that it is just one original story that was stolen and reused, but I still think it has truth at its core for some group of people.

This vibrant and massive history, to me, is the evidence of some interaction. Even today, across the world over, you'll find stories of little miracles here and there from all aspects of people (religious or not). Things that have quotes from doctors or other professionals that they cannot state why the outcome happened as it should not have. Possibly just random chance or natural variation or possibly the influence of the something else. (these examples also demonstrate that no single religion is 'right' as these 'miracles' happen in all societies)

I'm having trouble understanding why you think "most" stories are true, especially given the commonality of folklore in human history. If someone tells me that they saw a man do a superman flyover in NYC I'd be searching for a video of this awesome feat, I wouldn't simply believe this individual. I'm not sure if you're saying that you're gullible or that your standards for what you will believe are not very rigid.

When DNA was introduced in court for example, nearly 1/3rd of criminals convicted on eyewitnesses testimony were exonerated. Humans are not cameras, they have terrible memories and are terribly unobservant. Each time you access a memory it degrades.

I am interested in what you mean by this miracle stuff, mostly what you mean by miracle. To me a miracle is a suspension of the natural order. A planet suddenly zooming away from its galaxy at the speed of light and suddenly appearing in our Milky Way galaxy and in our very solar system. Something that violates the laws of physics. To my knowledge, no such event has ever taken place.

You also seem to be equivocating the inexplicable with the miraculous and I think that's an enormous mistake. Some time ago you'd be claiming that eclipses were miracles. We know better, and as we learn more the events people claim are miracles shrink to zero. The god of the gaps is fading away like casper. 

I don't know what more to say. You mentioned you studied computer science so I'm dumbfounded by your willingness to embrace the stories of people over objective evidence. It's just not logical, nor prudent.



superchunk said:
JWeinCom said:

Yeah.  I'd be ok with defining it as belief, although certain people might want to argue with it that it's a lack of belief as I've experienced.  Lol.

In the example I provided, I'd say the lack of evidence is the evidence.  If I had a kid, or kids, you would expect to have positive evidence that a child lives in my house.  The lack of that positive evidence is the evidence.  

Similarly if you suggest there is a god, depending on how you define god, I might expect some evidence.  For example, if someone said that the Bible is literally true I would expect for instance some evidence of Jews having spent a significant amount of time enslaved in Egypt.  However, we don't have that.  We would also expect some evidence of a global flood, and we don't find that.  And so on.

Which is why I asked earlier if you believe that god actually interacts with the world.  If he does, then we would expect some kind of detectable evidence.  If we can't find this evidence, it is reasonable to believe that god does not exist.

I think there is evidence in the massive backlog of human spiritual experience. Literally every civilization has numerous ideologies and stories. I do think there is truth most stories. This is also hinted at the Noah story which is a common story shared by many different civilizations. Of course it can't be a literal global flood, but something had to have happened to drive so many common stories from so many different people and religions. You could argue that it is just one original story that was stolen and reused, but I still think it has truth at its core for some group of people.

This vibrant and massive history, to me, is the evidence of some interaction. Even today, across the world over, you'll find stories of little miracles here and there from all aspects of people (religious or not). Things that have quotes from doctors or other professionals that they cannot state why the outcome happened as it should not have. Possibly just random chance or natural variation or possibly the influence of the something else. (these examples also demonstrate that no single religion is 'right' as these 'miracles' happen in all societies)

My point of view is that the belief in the existence of God or the belief in the non-existence in God is irrelevant to each other or to God. People push on their belief's because it makes them feel better. I say, do what makes you a happy person and provides you value. So long as you recognize the worth of others and treat them as you'd want to be treated. If you are curious about that type of mentality, research UU. 

Eh... well there is something that happened to drive so many common stories... floods.  

Virtually every civilization was born near a river or body of fresh water out of necessity.  So, it's not surprising that nearly every culture has some kind of story involving floods.  Basically every civilization also has some sort of Cinderella story, because every culture has step children, and that sort of situation.

Likewise, I think that we all have experiences we can't explain, and it's often natural to associate them with miracles.

Overall, I really have no objection to your beliefs, and I actually am curious.  I've been looking for an organization where I could meet with people who want to do good in the world, and have a community connection.  I've looked mainly at secular humanist organizations, but for the most part it seems like the events they have are all about spreading atheism or secularism.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not what I'm into.  I was more interested in helping people and perhaps having a supportive group.  

I've heard of Universal Unitarianism (I think that's what UU stands for), but I haven't looked into it that much.

Have you attended UU services often?  Would you mind sharing some of your experiences?  Do you think as a very strong atheist I would feel welcome there?



Runa216 said:
Zoombael said:

Yes. It is ironic when people argue with "but science", however when science comes up, they have no clue whatsoever. That is why anti-theists or "a-theists" are, from my perspective, in the same range as creationists and other dead end minded extremists. You're not interested in a discussion, let alone a fruitful discussion. You want to propagte your belief and convince others that it is the only truth.

I don't think anyone in this thread has been more wrong than you right here during this post. 

Like, it would take 5x what you wrote just to explain how misguided you are, how wrong you are, and how thoroughly you miss the point. Like, it's not irony when people argue, nobody says 'but science' as a sort of counter expecting that to be enough on its own (That's not how science works), science does come up but it's always with methods of explaining or inquiring with more precision, scientists don't 'have no clue whatsoever', and even when there's a question that they don't know the answer to they don't make shit up to satisfy their theories - again, that's not how science works. You're misusing the term 'atheist' again as someone who vehemently claims to know there is no god instead of simply not believing in god (this is where much of your argument falls to shit if it hadn't already). Your perspective is irrelevant when it comes to what is and what isn't. Putting atheists on the same level of creationists is foolish because one relies on faith, the other relies on the scientific method, two things that are, by their very definition, on opposite ends of the spectrum of knowledge and understanding. Atheists/scientists can't be extremists by their very nature, as they don't have a 'cause' to fight for but instead, are guided by the advancement of knowledge and understanding instead of faith or belief. The problem is that scientists/atheists ARE interested in a discussion but they're demanding more proof on your behalf than you can provide so it's just easier for you to act like you're the innocent one being attacked than actually respond. 

And then you finish by saying we 'want to propagate our belief and convince others that it is the only truth.' This is where I came to say you were so wrong that it hurts. 

Because Scientists and atheists - at least none that I've seen and none in this thread - don't want to propagate anything, they are asking questions, demanding answers probing for more details, and putting faith up to reasonable scrutiny. Science is not a belief, it is a process that requires rigorous testing, the ability to replicate results, and the ability to communicate those results with others so that nonbiased third parties can test the results and ensure the tests and established facts are correct. No scientist goes in saying 'this is what I want to prove and I will do literally anything to convince myself and others', becuase that is the opposite of science, and as such, that is very similar to what atheists feel about God or religion in general. It's never 'I am 100% sure of the fact that there is no god", it's always "There absolutely no evidence in thousands of years that supports the existence of god." just like how scientists don't say "I will devise tests to prove my hypothesis", they say "Here is my hypothesis, I think it is correct and will now devise a test to check and see if it is true; if it is true, then great! If not, that means I've LEARNED SOMETHING and thus have advanced my knowledge!" 

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference of faith and knowledge and are unwilling to accept that one is backed by evidence and tests and thousands of the smartest people in the world and the other, by its very nature, is the exact opposite of that. You're equating faith with facts, and that is why you fail to understand how wrong you are about the nature of atheism and the nature of scientific studies. As long as you continue to falsely equate the two, you can never be taken seriously. 

Religion and science are not equals when it comes to intellectual debate. The scientific method is as far removed and superior to faith as it can possibly be, and the fact that you genuinely seem to think that scientists and by extension atheists apply the same fanatical pushing of belief that religions do is enough to completely discredit you. 

It is astounding how people can twist reality so much that they feel that faith in religion is the same as 'faith in the scientific method'. It's a concept so foolish I can't even think of a metaphor to describe it because it is its own example of how foolish it is. 

No, it is you who is completely missing the point, completely ignoring what was written and what i responded to, not addressing my arguments directly (as usual).

 

 

"It is astounding how people can twist reality so much that they feel that faith in religion is the same as 'faith in the scientific method'."

Then why the fudge are you asking someone to prove what he believes in? It is called belief, indeed it is not a scientific theory. You throw them both in the same basket. You are the one who is mixing things up. 

 

Why dont you "believe" in anything beyond your perception? Not because there is no evidence, it is because you chose to. If there would be sound evidence for what i believe in than i wouldnt have to guess, than i would know for certain.

 

Because Scientists and atheists - at least none that I've seen and none in this thread - don't want to propagate anything"

Then why are we having this off topic debate, users (incl. a mod) approaching aggressively others who simply make a brief on topic comment?

Asking questions? Reminds me off 911 CT debates. "O we are just asking questions, no hidden agenda, totally innocently, nothing subtextual"

Sounds as hypocritcical and pretentious as a televangelist.

 

they are asking questions, demanding answers probing for more details, and putting faith up to reasonable scrutiny. "

Sure. This thread and the people involved are appropriate conditions to dabble in this meaningless, unreasonable endeavour of yours. 

Do you honestly believe anyone is qualified and up to the task? You think you can validate evidence?

I attempted to present details to what i believe in, what i suspect. I asked a user a question. Right away it was misunderstood. I followed up, and tried clearify, but the user was completely clueless of what i was gibberishing about. But you think you can decipher a divine message when displayed infront of you? You have a hard time understanding what goes on in your little world and you think you have what it takes to rely on others to find Waldo? Hundred thousands of years of humanity, yet they still havent figured out where the universe comes from and where it goes? Do you know? I have an idea... thanks to none other than sssscience. Yes, i can fairly certainly say, i believe in something "because of science". 

 

"and the fact that you genuinely seem to think that scientists and by extension atheists apply the same fanatical pushing of belief that religions do is enough to completely discredit you. "

Yawell, i did not say such thing.

What i said was: "in the same range as creationists and other dead end minded extremists."

Nowhere did i say anti-theists had the opportunity to equally crusade as other religions. Just that they are like-deadend-minded, close minded, ignorant, trapped in their limited wordly minds. I didnt include scientists. That was your preset mindset fabulating. 



Hunting Season is done...

Man some of you are crazy zealots who act just as bad as the theists you like to complain about.

Overly aggressive, fantastical cherry-picking, and extreme examples, and so on.

I didn't answer the original questions as an attempt to pursued anyone's opinion. I was asked about my reasoning and I attempted to provide that through high-level assertion of my own studies as well as broad answers to generalize my thoughts on God. However, folks here treat this as a fanatical interrogation and some sort of personal self-righteous cause to win (i.e. a zealot). You are acting exactly like the religious factions you decry.

As an example, I stated above that most stories have some sort of basis in truth.

I highlighted that Noah's flood story is found in a large number of civilizations and religious cultures which suggests that it has to contain some level of truth. Does that equate to a world-wide flood where a guy fit every living thing in a single boat? No, of course not. But it could mean some regionally catastrophic flood where a guy had a boat that saved a lot of life (people or farms, etc). He could of claimed later that spiritual guidance drove his actions, etc and that over time blew up to the many variations we have now.

I also answered a direct extreme question related to believing in dragons and I said, yes they did obviously exist as Dinosaurs. I specifically called out that people misinterpreted them to form the dragon theme. The retort I get is if dinos breathed fire, etc. WTF, did you not read what I wrote or were you too busy trying to win your extremist ideological fantasy bowl that you jump to further extreme commentary? Of course, the fire, etc of dragons is part of the misrepresentation and fantasy that was developed by folks who built stories from Dinosaur bones. Same with your other mythical creatures, many have real roots. Beasts similar to horses had a single horn and thus unicorns. People are born who grow to extraordinary sizes, thus giants. Sailors have always seen weird shit due to light refraction, etc and thus mermaids, loch ness, etc.

Back to the concept of God. The question was "do you believe and why". Not "prove to me why I'm wrong bitch".

I'm happy that what you believe makes you happy and hopefully you see the bigger picture. Be a good human during your limited time in this universe and treat others as you'd want to be treated.



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

Eh... well there is something that happened to drive so many common stories... floods.  

Virtually every civilization was born near a river or body of fresh water out of necessity.  So, it's not surprising that nearly every culture has some kind of story involving floods.  Basically every civilization also has some sort of Cinderella story, because every culture has step children, and that sort of situation.

Likewise, I think that we all have experiences we can't explain, and it's often natural to associate them with miracles.

Overall, I really have no objection to your beliefs, and I actually am curious.  I've been looking for an organization where I could meet with people who want to do good in the world, and have a community connection.  I've looked mainly at secular humanist organizations, but for the most part it seems like the events they have are all about spreading atheism or secularism.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not what I'm into.  I was more interested in helping people and perhaps having a supportive group.  

I've heard of Universal Unitarianism (I think that's what UU stands for), but I haven't looked into it that much.

Have you attended UU services often?  Would you mind sharing some of your experiences?  Do you think as a very strong atheist I would feel welcome there?

RE: Noah - the stories have a lot more in common than a flood. They all focus on a man/family that based on guidance from divine built a boat to save substantial life from a catastrophic flood. I think that base root is what is true and that story spread far and wide due to the abnormal level of catastrophe.

UU is awesome. Anyone regardless of belief, ability, sexual orientation, etc is welcomed. The focus is not how you worship or don't worship something but how you work to improve your life and the lives of those you can impact. I go on Sunday's (they do have roots in Christianity, but that is not the basis UU). You will find atheists and theists in any congregation as an example. I'd suggest that it doesn't hurt to take one hour on a Sunday and just pop in on your local congregation. You may like it or not, but its no risk and very little investment.

Take a look at this.

https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

We started going because we wanted a place where all people are accepted, we could build on strong morals and good character for or kids, and we could use the community to make some sort of difference to others. While my wife and I are theists, 1 son is atheist and the other 2 kids are still figuring it out. However, they have learned that helping others is a critical part of life and we do things such as go to Mexico to build homes, etc. We also work with homeless when possible and are active in political protest. UU is a very liberal community. I believe you can only raise the well-being of your entire nation by improving the lowest points first. Its how business do well and its how the nation should focus its long-term strategy and investment.



OhNoYouDont said:

I'm having trouble understanding why you think "most" stories are true, especially given the commonality of folklore in human history. If someone tells me that they saw a man do a superman flyover in NYC I'd be searching for a video of this awesome feat, I wouldn't simply believe this individual. I'm not sure if you're saying that you're gullible or that your standards for what you will believe are not very rigid.

When DNA was introduced in court for example, nearly 1/3rd of criminals convicted on eyewitnesses testimony were exonerated. Humans are not cameras, they have terrible memories and are terribly unobservant. Each time you access a memory it degrades.

I am interested in what you mean by this miracle stuff, mostly what you mean by miracle. To me a miracle is a suspension of the natural order. A planet suddenly zooming away from its galaxy at the speed of light and suddenly appearing in our Milky Way galaxy and in our very solar system. Something that violates the laws of physics. To my knowledge, no such event has ever taken place.

You also seem to be equivocating the inexplicable with the miraculous and I think that's an enormous mistake. Some time ago you'd be claiming that eclipses were miracles. We know better, and as we learn more the events people claim are miracles shrink to zero. The god of the gaps is fading away like casper. 

I don't know what more to say. You mentioned you studied computer science so I'm dumbfounded by your willingness to embrace the stories of people over objective evidence. It's just not logical, nor prudent.

The root of my point is that stories have a nugget of truth much of the time. Yes, people get it wrong and over time the story continues to grow and grow to the fantastical. Yet, even today you have people who have stories of dying (proven medical records of being considered dead for x time) and seeing their body, others, things that happened while they were clearly dead. These stories are not limited to 1 religious group or civilization either. I agree my usage of miracle is probably a poor word choice and inexplicable is better as I was referring mostly to medical healing, etc as there is a lot of specific data and evidence from qualified professionals to take into consideration.

I do think there is some sort of spiritual connection in all life and to me that is the root of God. Matter doesn't vanish, it transforms. To me, existence is finite and interconnected at a level we cannot comprehend or measure, yet. I theorize that that interconnection is governed by itself through a combination of layers of universal, natural laws, as well as chaos. This interconnection has a some form of self-awareness and can influence itself (all of use and everything) at some level.

I'm confident that if we as a species can avoid the pitfalls of extinction (self-caused or chaos induced), then we will get to a point of being able to understand, commune, and manipulate this universal interconnection. My view as this interconnection is what we'd agree to as God or IMO, the very basis of existence is God because God is Existence. Everything is part of God.



superchunk said:
I was asked about my reasoning and I attempted to provide that through high-level assertion of my own studies as well as broad answers to generalize my thoughts on God.

How can you study something that doesn't have evidence to exist? Counter productive, no?
And that is why we are picking apart your position.

superchunk said:
As an example, I stated above that most stories have some sort of basis in truth.

And we provided plenty of examples that don't have truth to them.

superchunk said:
I highlighted that Noah's flood story is found in a large number of civilizations and religious cultures which suggests that it has to contain some level of truth.
Does that equate to a world-wide flood where a guy fit every living thing in a single boat? No, of course not. But it could mean some regionally catastrophic flood where a guy had a boat that saved a lot of life (people or farms, etc).

There was never a world-wide flood. - That is the evidence we have, at-least you recognize that.
The fact that the theistic narrative has taken that myth and ran with it, is very telling though... And doesn't do religion any favors.

superchunk said:
He could of claimed later that spiritual guidance drove his actions, etc and that over time blew up to the many variations we have now.

How do we know he had spiritual guidance that drove his actions?

superchunk said:
I also answered a direct extreme question related to believing in dragons and I said, yes they did obviously exist as Dinosaurs.  I specifically called out that people misinterpreted them to form the dragon theme. The retort I get is if dinos breathed fire, etc. WTF, did you not read what I wrote or were you too busy trying to win your extremist ideological fantasy bowl that you jump to further extreme commentary? Of course, the fire, etc of dragons is part of the misrepresentation and fantasy that was developed by folks who built stories from Dinosaur bones. Same with your other mythical creatures, many have real roots. Beasts similar to horses had a single horn and thus unicorns. People are born who grow to extraordinary sizes, thus giants. Sailors have always seen weird shit due to light refraction, etc and thus mermaids, loch ness, etc.

What you are essentially saying is that we shouldn't be taking religion seriously because none of the claims will be accurate.
Good to know.

superchunk said:
Back to the concept of God. The question was "do you believe and why". Not "prove to me why I'm wrong bitch".

Nope. You get both if you want to push your position.

superchunk said:
I'd suggest that it doesn't hurt to take one hour on a Sunday and just pop in on your local congregation. You may like it or not, but its no risk and very little investment.

I went to Church for years.
The amount of horrific incidents I have seen daily... If there was hypothetically a God... Then that God is a cruel, disgusting monster that isn't worthy of worpship anyway.

superchunk said:
The root of my point is that stories have a nugget of truth much of the time.

Or perhaps it's just coincidence, you are drawing false lines between the two?

superchunk said:
Yet, even today you have people who have stories of dying (proven medical records of being considered dead for x time) and seeing their body, others, things that happened while they were clearly dead.

There are logical reasons for this.
The body is inundated with a ton of chemicals/hormones, organs are relaxed as the body isn't controlling everything in the event of death.
So of course some funky shit is going to go down.

Doesn't mean God exists.

superchunk said:
hese stories are not limited to 1 religious group or civilization either. I agree my usage of miracle is probably a poor word choice and inexplicable is better as I was referring mostly to medical healing, etc as there is a lot of specific data and evidence from qualified professionals to take into consideration.

And? Religion is mostly used by those who use it to explain the unexplainable.

superchunk said:
Matter doesn't vanish, it transforms.

Not entirely accurate.
Whilst the law of conservation does exist... I highly suggest you look into what the Hadron Collider is achieving or rather... Has already achieved.

superchunk said:
To me, existence is finite and interconnected at a level we cannot comprehend or measure, yet.

Doesn't mean God exists.

superchunk said:
I theorize that that interconnection is governed by itself through a combination of layers of universal, natural laws, as well as chaos.

Chaos is a natural law.

superchunk said:
This interconnection has a some form of self-awareness and can influence itself (all of use and everything) at some level.

Evidence?

superchunk said:
I'm confident that if we as a species can avoid the pitfalls of extinction (self-caused or chaos induced), then we will get to a point of being able to understand, commune, and manipulate this universal interconnection.

Bold claims.

superchunk said:
My view as this interconnection is what we'd agree to as God or IMO, the very basis of existence is God because God is Existence. Everything is part of God.

Nope.
If you are going to make an assertion that everything is a part of God... Then you need evidence.

You know that it is okay to say "I don't know?" when you don't understand something? You don't have to automagically chalk it up to "God did it"?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

superchunk said:
JWeinCom said:

Eh... well there is something that happened to drive so many common stories... floods.  

Virtually every civilization was born near a river or body of fresh water out of necessity.  So, it's not surprising that nearly every culture has some kind of story involving floods.  Basically every civilization also has some sort of Cinderella story, because every culture has step children, and that sort of situation.

Likewise, I think that we all have experiences we can't explain, and it's often natural to associate them with miracles.

Overall, I really have no objection to your beliefs, and I actually am curious.  I've been looking for an organization where I could meet with people who want to do good in the world, and have a community connection.  I've looked mainly at secular humanist organizations, but for the most part it seems like the events they have are all about spreading atheism or secularism.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not what I'm into.  I was more interested in helping people and perhaps having a supportive group.  

I've heard of Universal Unitarianism (I think that's what UU stands for), but I haven't looked into it that much.

Have you attended UU services often?  Would you mind sharing some of your experiences?  Do you think as a very strong atheist I would feel welcome there?

RE: Noah - the stories have a lot more in common than a flood. They all focus on a man/family that based on guidance from divine built a boat to save substantial life from a catastrophic flood. I think that base root is what is true and that story spread far and wide due to the abnormal level of catastrophe.

UU is awesome. Anyone regardless of belief, ability, sexual orientation, etc is welcomed. The focus is not how you worship or don't worship something but how you work to improve your life and the lives of those you can impact. I go on Sunday's (they do have roots in Christianity, but that is not the basis UU). You will find atheists and theists in any congregation as an example. I'd suggest that it doesn't hurt to take one hour on a Sunday and just pop in on your local congregation. You may like it or not, but its no risk and very little investment.

Take a look at this.

https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

We started going because we wanted a place where all people are accepted, we could build on strong morals and good character for or kids, and we could use the community to make some sort of difference to others. While my wife and I are theists, 1 son is atheist and the other 2 kids are still figuring it out. However, they have learned that helping others is a critical part of life and we do things such as go to Mexico to build homes, etc. We also work with homeless when possible and are active in political protest. UU is a very liberal community. I believe you can only raise the well-being of your entire nation by improving the lowest points first. Its how business do well and its how the nation should focus its long-term strategy and investment.

We're humans and we're going to create similar stories about the things we experience.   I don't think it's all that surprising that we're going to have strong commonalities among our stories. It may be interesting to look for if there was in fact some major event that it stemmed from (I think it could just be the common experience of flooding), but I think you're taking a leap too far.

I looked into a couple of UU ummm "churches" if that's the word in my area.  One of them seemed basically like Christianity in disguise.  The other seems a bit more truly open.  I may check it out this Sunday since the Jets are playing tonight and I won't have to miss the game.  Thanks for the suggestion.  Contrary to many atheists I do see the value in religious tradition... and if I could get it without the actual religion, I'd be open to that.



superchunk said:
OhNoYouDont said:

I'm having trouble understanding why you think "most" stories are true, especially given the commonality of folklore in human history. If someone tells me that they saw a man do a superman flyover in NYC I'd be searching for a video of this awesome feat, I wouldn't simply believe this individual. I'm not sure if you're saying that you're gullible or that your standards for what you will believe are not very rigid.

When DNA was introduced in court for example, nearly 1/3rd of criminals convicted on eyewitnesses testimony were exonerated. Humans are not cameras, they have terrible memories and are terribly unobservant. Each time you access a memory it degrades.

I am interested in what you mean by this miracle stuff, mostly what you mean by miracle. To me a miracle is a suspension of the natural order. A planet suddenly zooming away from its galaxy at the speed of light and suddenly appearing in our Milky Way galaxy and in our very solar system. Something that violates the laws of physics. To my knowledge, no such event has ever taken place.

You also seem to be equivocating the inexplicable with the miraculous and I think that's an enormous mistake. Some time ago you'd be claiming that eclipses were miracles. We know better, and as we learn more the events people claim are miracles shrink to zero. The god of the gaps is fading away like casper. 

I don't know what more to say. You mentioned you studied computer science so I'm dumbfounded by your willingness to embrace the stories of people over objective evidence. It's just not logical, nor prudent.

The root of my point is that stories have a nugget of truth much of the time. Yes, people get it wrong and over time the story continues to grow and grow to the fantastical. Yet, even today you have people who have stories of dying (proven medical records of being considered dead for x time) and seeing their body, others, things that happened while they were clearly dead. These stories are not limited to 1 religious group or civilization either. I agree my usage of miracle is probably a poor word choice and inexplicable is better as I was referring mostly to medical healing, etc as there is a lot of specific data and evidence from qualified professionals to take into consideration.

I do think there is some sort of spiritual connection in all life and to me that is the root of God. Matter doesn't vanish, it transforms. To me, existence is finite and interconnected at a level we cannot comprehend or measure, yet. I theorize that that interconnection is governed by itself through a combination of layers of universal, natural laws, as well as chaos. This interconnection has a some form of self-awareness and can influence itself (all of use and everything) at some level.

I'm confident that if we as a species can avoid the pitfalls of extinction (self-caused or chaos induced), then we will get to a point of being able to understand, commune, and manipulate this universal interconnection. My view as this interconnection is what we'd agree to as God or IMO, the very basis of existence is God because God is Existence. Everything is part of God.

Well I mean, okay sure I'm with you on the flood narratives and we have evidence of localized floods occurring. But, let's suppose most of these flood accounts also mentioned that some alien caused the floods. At what point do you take a step back and say okay some of this is true and some of this is fantasy? How do you decide on the fact versus the fantasy exactly? It is just the number of stories or is there more to it?

Your brain continues to function for a period of time after your heart stops beating. These dead people were more accurately nearly dead or will die without intervention. They are cool cases because not much science exists in this area yet. The AWARE study recently released its initial findings. The goal of the study was to research NDEs and in particular out of body experiences. While it didn't confirm any out of body experiences, it did confirm 1 case where the patient seemingly recalled events from a period of time when brain activity was not expected. 

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual connection, sounds a bit like star wars to me. I do not see any reason to suspect any link between disconnected matter blobs. 

I would say the Universe is all that exists. I don't see where any gods come into play. For me, you're staring at a glass of water and saying that there are other molecules in there besides H2O, and I'm saying okay where is your evidence and you're unable to supply any. So at the end of the day why would I believe you, and more importantly why do you believe you?