I Believe That There Is No God

[ScottSA]

While the forest, the sun and the rain all have scientific explanations, the experience of them do not.

You missed the point entirely.

Have you ever wondered why these things give us such experiences? Could it be that we evolved to appreciate these things?

Could be, but to what end?

[Posit]

Rather we have evolved not to try to intellectualize these experiences.

And yet, with free will, "the experiences of death, suffering and torture people all over this planet face everyday. are experiences some get to choose.

If death is not the finality of life, then what do pain, and death really matter?

[Mad_Michael]

Rather we have evolved not to try to intellectualize these experiences.

This strikes me as a bold sweeping statement that cannot be proven or disproven.

If death is not the finality of life, then what do pain, and death really matter?

Your question is too clever by half. You are serving up an invitation for clever theists here.

[cybercoma]

Rather we have evolved not to try to intellectualize these experiences.

And yet, with free will, "the experiences of death, suffering and torture people all over this planet face everyday. are experiences some get to choose.

If death is not the finality of life, then what do pain, and death really matter?

They matter because you "won the genetic lottery" and have been able to live. Death matters because it is the end of life. Death matters because in order for you to die that means you have lived.

Life after death takes away true appreciation for life itself.

[ScottSA]

Rather we have evolved not to try to intellectualize these experiences.

And yet, with free will, "the experiences of death, suffering and torture people all over this planet face everyday. are experiences some get to choose.

If death is not the finality of life, then what do pain, and death really matter?

They matter because you "won the genetic lottery" and have been able to live. Death matters because it is the end of life. Death matters because in order for you to die that means you have lived.

Life after death takes away true appreciation for life itself.

Then why do religious people find the same or greater joy in the same thing?

[cybercoma]

Then why do religious people find the same or greater joy in the same thing?

Because they're not unique and special snowflakes. We're all human animals.

[ScottSA]

Then why do religious people find the same or greater joy in the same thing?

Because they're not unique and special snowflakes. We're all human animals.

But you just said that belief in the afterlife takes that joy away. Surely you're not just making up grand sweeping pronouncements and tossing them about?

[cybercoma]

But you just said that belief in the afterlife takes that joy away. Surely you're not just making up grand sweeping pronouncements and tossing them about?

When a bishop goes on to justify the deaths of innocent people because flooding is "God's judgment" for a society that is not willing to discriminate against homosexuals, when someone straps explosives to themselves and shouts "allahu akhbar" before killing innocent people, when abortion doctors are murdered on the steps of their clinic, when religious leaders celebrate the spread of AIDS as punishment to a society that refuses to discriminate against homosexuals, when girls are beaten to death in the middle of the street because their boyfriend is of a different religion, when groups of people are dragged off a bus and beaten to death for no other reason than the religion they believe in, when girls genitals are being butchered so they can't find pleasure in sex, when mother theresa supports a ban on divorce which would force women who are beaten and abused by their drunk irish husbands to stay in those relationships, when a raped girl is not told about her options to not have to carry the baby of a sick and evil person, when AIDS is spreading like wildfire in Africa and ministries are preaching that people should abstain until marriage instead of using condoms, then yeah... It's pretty obvious that there's little appreciation for life itself.

That's regardless of how serene one feels when presented with the scene that was illustrated earlier. Which is what I was saying we can all appreciate.

[Xman]

Don't believe in God? OK. You believe that there is no God. That is your belief; system of belief, religion or philosophy, perhaps. Fair enough. The most we can do is believe instead of knowing. If there were proof, then we would know. There is no proof, so we just don't know. Is it within our capacity to prove the existence of God? I believe not.

Freud theorized that the personality was composed of the I, the It, and The One Above. It seems that Freud has a place for "one above" in being human, and that we have an innate capacity and need to involve "one above". Being human is not measurable. It cannot be gauged by science. If it cannot be gauged, then where is the proof?

We have a dilemma in that we can prove neither the existence of God nor the intricacies of the human condition. To where do we go from here?

[Posit]

There is no death. It is an illusion.

By all experiences all there is, is life. That which we believe is dead appears to be without life, yet it lives on....if only in the gut of a blow fly....

[cybercoma]

There is no death. It is an illusion.

By all experiences all there is, is life. That which we believe is dead appears to be without life, yet it lives on....if only in the gut of a blow fly....

Please let everyone in England who lost loved ones to the floods know this. You may also want to let the bishops know that God failed horribly with his punishment, since there is no death.

[Posit]

Being "free will" your illusion in death is complete and fulfilling. Believe in death and it becomes you. Believe in life and that is all you will experience. You see you cannot half believe in anything and expect different results.

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." ...a scientific premise....What is life if not our souls filled with energy and although our thoughts are without a body, can our thoughts be equally without a further thought? We are but ideas of ourselves and our experiences.

And what is God but an Idea of Him/Herself?

[Mad_Michael]

Don't believe in God? OK. You believe that there is no God. That is your belief; system of belief, religion or philosophy, perhaps. Fair enough.

Not entirely so. One can rationally hold doubt of god, but that is technically beside the point here. Consider this perhaps as a rejoiner for your 'preamble' statement.

The most we can do is believe instead of knowing. If there were proof, then we would know. There is no proof, so we just don't know.

True. However, there is a slippery slope to a famous false dichotomy that is often favoured by theists. Suffice it to say that the lack of proof of God does not require us (as humans) to give up our seeking after knowledge or proof of same. Indeed, the seeking is half the fun of it.

Is it within our capacity to prove the existence of God? I believe not.

I believe you are correct here. And vice versa as well.

Freud theorized that the personality was composed of the I, the It, and The One Above. It seems that Freud has a place for "one above" in being human, and that we have an innate capacity and need to involve "one above".

As a general rule, Freud theorized lots of crazy things.

And in Freud's theory cited above, the super-ego can be conventionally interpreted as our society. No need to invoke the supernatural for an explicable phenomena. That is not rational according to application of Ockham's Razor.

Being human is not measurable. It cannot be gauged by science. If it cannot be gauged, then where is the proof?

Indeed an excellent point and a predictable flaw in the common practice of scientific reasoning. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist.

*Note: The above is a flaw in the common application of scientific reasoning - it is not necessarily a flaw in the inherent process of scientific reasoning.

We have a dilemma in that we can prove neither the existence of God nor the intricacies of the human condition. To where do we go from here?

Damn good question.

The only point I'd like to raise here is that of the 'personal vs private'. Who or what you believe upon that question is your own 'private' business. The only real issue that rightfully ought to concern anyone, or perhaps the only issue that is worthy of discussion, would be the impact upon public policy. It is only when private beliefs impact public policy and civil society that another group may have a reasonable right to object or concern themselves with the topic.

If we all just minded our own religious (or non-religious) business and stayed home, there'd be no issue here. Obviously, some people just like to argue about the topic so where we are!

[Mad_Michael]

Being "free will" your illusion in death is complete and fulfilling. Believe in death and it becomes you. Believe in life and that is all you will experience.

The power of belief is strong.

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." ...a scientific premise....

You cut off the last bit... "it can only be changed in form". Just being pedantic here.

What is life is not our souls filled with energy and though our thoughts are without a body, are our thoughts equally without a further thought?

Technically speaking, it could be lots of different things.

And what is God but an Idea of Him/Herself?

Perhaps an idea of ours?

[Mad_Michael]

There is no death. It is an illusion.

There is no illusion. It is death.

By all experiences all there is, is life. That which we believe is dead appears to be without life, yet it lives on....if only in the gut of a blow fly....

By all experience, all there is, is death. That which we believe is often illusion. Even in the post of a discussion forum...

Touche!

[ScottSA]

Ockham's Razor.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.

[Posit]

It is not productive in science to define something by what it isn't. However, it is the only practical way to define something as its antithesis in order to argue that delusion is somehow real.

[Mad_Michael]

Ockham's Razor.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.

You do provide entertainment certainly!

[cybercoma]

Ockham's Razor.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.

You're not really serious, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

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

His name is William of Ockham... yikes.

[Xman]

Don't believe in God? OK. You believe that there is no God. That is your belief; system of belief, religion or philosophy, perhaps. Fair enough.

Not entirely so. One can rationally hold doubt of god, but that is technically beside the point here.

The point here is: Since there is no proof for the existence of God, then there can only be belief (i.e. there is no logical rationale for holding doubt or otherwise).

[Rue]

Any God that sends people to hell for not believing in him/her/it is a God that I want no part of.

Whether a person is atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever, it should not matter as long as they are a decent human being.

A God that would send people to hell is a Man made creation and necessarily defective in concept precisely for the reasons you stated and because it because it was conceived by inperfect humans.

If there is a God it can only speak for itself, and anything we humans say on its behalf is presumptious to say the least and is simply subjective speculation and opinions being rendered by humans.

I like your point. I have taken a variation of that arguement and had huge arguements with Rabbias over my concept of God not being as vengeful and angry as is depicted in the Old Testament and how I have problems with grumpy constipated old smelly men in beards telling me God is also grumpyand constipated.

Me personally, I don't work well with concepts of a God that has it having temper tantrums, killing things in anger, or devisingthings to torture people. I believe evil is a man made creation not the creation of God, and the same free willl that causes men to be evil also gives us the ability to transcend it and be good. In that respect I agree with humanists that any hell or evil is what man makes and can prevent if he so chooses.

I keep using the word "men" and "he" because I blame everything bad on men not women. I say this because I am married and have daughters and know better.

[Rue]

SOme people say either "God" is a creation of man or vice versa. I do not see these as two opposites and it must be one or the other. I see them both existing simultaneously. My personal believe is the alpha and omega just are and are not seperated and that the concept of seperation or either/or, is an illusion.

So whether there is a God or not, I still believe humans have free will and so are responsible for their choices and the consequences of those choices.

I see God and man as I do evil and good, life and death, men and women, inextricably connected but constantly in conflict. I believe the very built in nature of the need to harmonize or balance the conflict is what generates meaning or spiritual value or essence.

I believe when Popeye the Sailor used to sing " I yam what I yam and dats all dats I yam, I'm Popeye dah Sailor Man, he was in fact describing the paradox of trying to define humans and God. Popeye was the good part of humans Brutus or Bluto was the bad part, Olive Oil was Eve and also a tremptress slut, Wimpy was the symbol for sloth and greed, and Alice the Goon and her followers were people possessed by demons.

Spinach was symbolic for enlightenment or the truth or being honest and positive.

So stop debating and watch old Popeye cartoons.

[jbg]

SOme people say either "God" is a creation of man or vice versa. I do not see these as two opposites and it must be one or the other. I see them both existing simultaneously. My personal believe is the alpha and omega just are and are not seperated and that the concept of seperation or either/or, is an illusion.

So whether there is a God or not, I still believe humans have free will and so are responsible for their choices and the consequences of those choices.

I see God and man as I do evil and good, life and death, men and women, inextricably connected but constantly in conflict. I believe the very built in nature of the need to harmonize or balance the conflict is what generates meaning or spiritual value or essence.

Not surprisingly, you and I are on the same page here.

[Posit]

The point here is: Since there is no proof for the existence of God, then there can only be belief (i.e. there is no logical rationale for holding doubt or otherwise).

No. The point is that there is plenty of proof for the existence of God, but many choose not to see it as Divine. It is poor science when one goes out to prove a conclusion already determined. Rather, science would open the door to a possibility of the Divine as one of the explanations unexplained events rather than concluding its impossibility.

[Mad_Michael]

Ockham's Razor.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.

You're not really serious, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

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

His name is William of Ockham... yikes.

I believe ScottSA was trying to be serious - for what that's worth.

Anyway, as near as I can tell, the odd spelling of "Occam" is apparently an American thing - seemingly fully accepted as the 'proper' spelling of the term in the USA. Without a doubt, the proper spelling would be "Ockham" given that was originated by William of Ockham and that I've never encountered the spelling of "Occam" in any reputable non-American source. Every text I have cites the "Ockham" spelling.