Is it pointless to believe in God?

[wildcat]

Na-ah:
“It was, of course, a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” - Einstein

“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.’ - Einstein

Na-ah.. is that Apashi?

Is a personal God the rational thing?

 

[phobosdiemos]

God is completely faith based, and everyone's view of God fluctuates. Though there are many sects and religious orginizations all believing different things, to the individual God could be anything.

To me, I believe God is more or less a manifestation of our own brain. If you look at VERY old texts, B.C. or earlier, most writing from those times almost never use the term I, or me, or self. It is almost as though a person has no identity. So what does this person have? How do they know they exist?

We all have that little voice in our head. It is exactly as we have named it, our conscious, and it is what allows us to have identity. Now, try to use that same voice without the words I, me, or self (broadly speaking). How do you describe yourself? Can you even accomplish it?

I believe the concept of God was more or less our conscious telling us what to do. We've all seen the illustrations of the little angel and little devil on our shoulder telling US what to do with OUR life. It is, in essence, the same thing, you hear a voice tell you what you are and what you should do; but never do you think about what YOU want, only what the voice wants. I believe this is one reason why faith is dwindling, and why few could "hear God".

Eventually of course, we evolved past it. God is still there, but rather has become a part of our inner psyche along with the development of an individual self.

 

[Mole]

God is completely faith based, and everyone's view of God fluctuates. Though there are many sects and religious orginizations all believing different things, to the individual God could be anything.

To me, I believe God is more or less a manifestation of our own brain. If you look at VERY old texts, B.C. or earlier, most writing from those times almost never use the term I, or me, or self. It is almost as though a person has no identity. So what does this person have? How do they know they exist?

We all have that little voice in our head. It is exactly as we have named it, our conscious, and it is what allows us to have identity. Now, try to use that same voice without the words I, me, or self (broadly speaking). How do you describe yourself? Can you even accomplish it?

I believe the concept of God was more or less our conscious telling us what to do. We've all seen the illustrations of the little angel and little devil on our shoulder telling US what to do with OUR life. It is, in essence, the same thing, you hear a voice tell you what you are and what you should do; but never do you think about what YOU want, only what the voice wants. I believe this is one reason why faith is dwindling, and why few could "hear God".

Eventually of course, we evolved past it. God is still there, but rather has become a part of our inner psyche along with the development of an individual self.

This is very interesting. It is almost as though you have read,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind",
by Julian Jaynes.

 

[phobosdiemos]

This is very interesting. It is almost as though you have read,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind",
by Julian Jaynes.

Indeed I have, it was a brilliant read and I'm not exactly sure why people didn't pay much attention to it. It's one of very few theories of God I can actually believe in. Believing that God is a physical part of me rather than some seperate entity from myself is more meaningful to me.

I still believe in some kind of afterlife, though I think it is impossible to know or understand what happens after we die. For this reason, I refuse to believe in a God who punishes those he's created. If God exists seperately from my physical mind, and there is a heaven and hell, then I find it appaling that he created me for the purpose of not worshipping him (as that is the direction my life is leading).

Why would God grant a person life who he knew would run around killing people, or raping, or some other vile deed?

Does he not know my choices before I make them? Where did our free-will go when we created the concept of God?

 

[Mole]

Indeed I have, it was a brilliant read and I'm not exactly sure why people didn't pay much attention to it. It's one of very few theories of God I can actually believe in. Believing that God is a physical part of me rather than some seperate entity from myself is more meaningful to me.

I still believe in some kind of afterlife, though I think it is impossible to know or understand what happens after we die. For this reason, I refuse to believe in a God who punishes those he's created. If God exists seperately from my physical mind, and there is a heaven and hell, then I find it appaling that he created me for the purpose of not worshipping him (as that is the direction my life is leading).

Why would God grant a person life who he knew would run around killing people, or raping, or some other vile deed?

Does he not know my choices before I make them? Where did our free-will go when we created the concept of God?

How wonderful to meet someone who has read Julian Jaynes. There is, as you may know, a Julian Jaynes Society and you may have more access to it than I.

As I see it, the problem for atheists is to explain why there has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

And whether he is right or wrong, Julian Jaynes makes the attempt.

Most, if not all, atheists elide the issue, but Julian Jaynes takes it head on.

The conclusions he reaches are so extraordinary that they are hard to believe. Certainly they cut across everything we have believed so far.

But, of course, it is deeply pleasurable to read such an original mind.

I am pleased to have shared the pleasure with you.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well that was that and this is this
You tell me what you saw and I'll tell you what you missed
When the ocean met the sky
When the Earth folded in on itself
When time and life shook hands and said goodbye, and said:
'Good luck, for your sake, I hope Heaven and Hell
Are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath'
You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste death?

--Modest Mouse, "The Ocean Breathes Salty"

I will make an actual response here, probably tomorrow, just really enjoy that song and found the quote to be relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[simulatedworld]

What else would people say during sex, then?

Anyhoo, the definition of the word "god" actually is pretty well agreed on: "Whatever you think the driving force in the world is." People don't feel like they're watering down the definition, then; they're being very literal when they refer to God, even if the God they believe in seems more nebulous than YHWH, and you can't really take them as the "deviation" from the fundamentalist standard unless you are implicitly suggesting that the fundamentalist standard is the one everything should be judged by in the first place.




*looks at empty bottle*

"Bastard! You consumed God! He was supposed to consume you!"



See above.

People are fighting over "ownership" of the word "God."
Just like Christians of all denoms are today (and, actually, for the last 2000 years) fighting over ownership of the word "Christian."




I just tend to see it as "believer in something divine" or "non-believer in the divine" (or "believer in no divine").



Although that's simply an opinion of yours (i.e., your assess of the content of other people's beliefs, you couldn't prove anything), I agree that it's bs to demand that other people disprove us or prove themselves in order to have validity. Why does anyone have to prove anything at all, short of when faith starts to get invasive into the lives of others? In general, since none of us can prove diddly, it doesn't make sense to make our own judgment the standard that others have to meet ... although somehow we have to reconcile that with the idea that our faith guides our choices and is generally what we use as a basis for life (i.e., part of the evaluation criteria).

So it seems to demand both an acceptance that we do give our own opinions more credibility and live according to them and evaluate other opinions by them, while at the same time a humility that we really can't prove anything that we believe and so it's really about our own personal faith that we share rather than impose.



lol, you know how to sweep an intellectual gal off her feet.

Can you define "divinity", please? I don't see that you've really resolved the issue I set forth, that being that if no one has any true authority as to what God really is, then God can be literally anything one wants and therefore the terms "theist" and "atheist" lose meaning.

Even if you have a precise definition of divinity, who says that others agree with this as the primary criterion for being God? By your own argument that the answer to "What is God?" is entirely subjective, God can literally be anything and anyone can correctly classify literally any belief as theism.

That's my concern.

 

[Totenkindly]

Can you define "divinity", please? I don't see that you've really resolved the issue I set forth, that being that if no one has any true authority as to what God really is, then God can be literally anything one wants and therefore the terms "theist" and "atheist" lose meaning.

Why are we discussing it, if it's that self-evident?

My point was merely that the word "God" itself never WAS specific, even if people use it that way. You're claiming the word "God" should have specific meaning to have value, but not if it always was intended for and used as a catch-all in general practice.

(Which is what basically has happened, especially in a melting-pot society like the US.)

But I think in practice the word theist has come to mean "someone who believes in some level of 'personal God' involved in the world" versus "someone who doesn't believe that a 'personal God' exists."

Even if you have a precise definition of divinity, who says that others agree with this as the primary criterion for being God? By your own argument that the answer to "What is God?" is entirely subjective, God can literally be anything and anyone can correctly classify literally any belief as theism.

I think the generally accepted definition is the one I just mentioned above, although I'm open to correction (I'm rather just winging this). Usually when God is an impersonal force (if some sort of divine is acknowledged), people don't end up using the term 'theism' per se.

Well that was that and this is this
You tell me what you saw and I'll tell you what you missed
When the ocean met the sky
When the Earth folded in on itself
When time and life shook hands and said goodbye, and said:
'Good luck, for your sake, I hope Heaven and Hell
Are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath'
You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste death?

--Modest Mouse, "The Ocean Breathes Salty"

Nice lyrics. Thank you.

 

[The Outsider]

Heaven always seemed like a creepy place for me. As I see it, it is supposed to be a happy place without any sin, where faithful will dwell for eternity. There are many problems with that.
Honestly, I don't think I would enjoy a place without sin. For God to truly achieve that, he'd have to take away our humanly sinful thoughts. Essentially, stripping us of our free will. If there was no place for violence in heaven, could I still write or think about it?

But anyway, I think that whether there is a God or not, if he is anything like the Abrahamic religions make him out to be, he isn't worthy of any praise or worship.

 

[simulatedworld]

But I think in practice the word theist has come to mean "someone who believes in some level of 'personal God' involved in the world" versus "someone who doesn't believe that a 'personal God' exists."



I think the generally accepted definition is the one I just mentioned above, although I'm open to correction (I'm rather just winging this). Usually when God is an impersonal force (if some sort of divine is acknowledged), people don't end up using the term 'theism' per se.

I'm not sure I understand your terms just yet. Let me know if this is right--by "personal God", you mean God as a conscious entity who acts as a moral agent, who has specific and definite moral preferences which he has set forth (even figuratively, if not literally) in holy texts, and who judges humanity based on belief in these texts and sends people to either eternal bliss or eternal suffering after death based on this? And an impersonal God would be the one who has no actual literal existence beyond your own body and mind?

To 90% of the religious people I know (granted, I live in the southern US, so...), God actually is a specific, conscious force who listens to prayers, creates real life miracles based on them, sends bad people to eternal suffering after death, etc...I know that there are religious leaders who've kind of evolved beyond this simplistic sort of belief, but still...I'm not basing this supposed "standard conception of God" on fundamentalism for its own sake, but rather on whatever conception of God best represents the views of most people who claim belief in him.

On a side note, I think it's awfully disreputable when misguided fundamentalists use things like "BUT EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN GOD!!!" to defend their absurd belief systems, when it's obvious that Einstein didn't mean "God" in remotely the same context in which they believe in him. Most of these people are rather simplistic SJs and they aren't even capable of the level of thought required to grasp Einstein's abstract conception of God. The confusion between these various conceptions of God all being placed under the same blanket name opens to the door to this kind of crap, and I think that intelligent theists would do well for themselves to simply stop calling their belief system the same thing when it clearly isn't.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I have waited for sometime to get as much answers as possible before I start replying.
What I find interesting is that from some replays it looks that this is a people think that I am trying to disprove God in this thread.
That is not the truth. What I am actually trying to disprove is that we need him so much and his rewards as people say we do.

That's because you're an INTJ.

It could sound funny but this could easily be the most correct sentence in this thread.

lol... yup, there are a lot of assumptions in that first post.

For example:


Who ever said that God was "good"?
Perhaps he's like IT out of Harlan Ellison's "I have no mouth and I must scream," and he creates people because he loves to torture them.

We can't make assumptions about the nature of God and then use those assumptions to prove or disprove God; we can simply create theories about who we think God is or isn't, and then use experience/logic/whatever else to test the theories.

Likewise:


Who says heaven and hell include the writing of books?
Who says we'll be the "same" there, subject to the same laws of boredom, as we are here?
Who says there actually exist those boundaries in heaven or hell that you claim here would exist?

Too many assumptions.

Is this really so big asumption?

You are right God does not have to be a good "person" but if he is not worshiping looses its point.
Witting books was just an analogy the thing is that human brain is not designed to handle eternal life. But if you give someone inhuman mind then this is no longer that person . The main problem with this is that if this is true then this life is be pretty pointless since it values mean nothing one the long run.

I think there is a point. That point to me is that something must have made everything... I don't think it just appeared out of no where.

I am sorry but you have attacked your own position with your argument.
If something made everything then why God can't be in category everything?

I think that God plays part is so many lives around the world that it would be utter insanity to call it pointless, whether you argue the truth in it, or not.

The problem I have is that people use a little bit of logic to outprove something so vast that nearly every culture shows some sign of its existence, even from prehistoric times. If you want to be specific, argue the concept of the beginning of the universe. What served as an energy source? I find it kind of paradoxical that people nail churches as being false towards God's existence, and than go and automaticly disprove the theory compoletely..it seems just as uneducated.

The thing is that this is not about if majority of people think it is pointless of not. It is about entire thing making sense on the long run.

Of course that it shows around the world. Since people can't explain their existence especially if we are talking before 20.century. Just because something is good for people that doesn’t mean that it exists. Is religion actually good for people, is also quite debatable.

It's kind of hard to have a dialog when people start with assumptions that aren't the same.

Again, one can hold a belief in God.

One can't say with certainty that "God loves us so much that he wants the best for us." That's an assumption, at core, just like you might take an algebraic equation and say, "Assume that x=3."

That's what a lot of this is.
One person says x=3.
Another says x=7.
Another might say that z = x-y.

It's nice to speculate those different things and see what patterns we can find if we start with particular assumptions.

But in the end it's all based on the assumptions.
There are no answers, only choices.

This looks very nice and pleasant as a philosophy but what evidence you have that there are choices?

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. There is not a single, 'correct', objective answer to this.

What do you mean when you say "pointless"? What IS the point? To be logical?

I am not saying that there is a single correct answer.
But to tell you the truth I doubt that there is such a thing as answer.

Pointless? I don't think so. Anything could be considered "pointless" to one person and vital to someone else. I don't want to break into religious babble but, for me, life without Jesus is pointless. Faith is something that isn't based on logic. But I then I guess "logic" could just be a buzz word. Like I think was mentioned in another thread; we don't "know" anything. Science could be fake. Everything could be fake and somehow beyond our reasoning. Existence is the ultimate mystery. Okay sorry for the babble. Short answer to your question:

No. I do not think it is pointless to believe in God.

This is quite interesting reply. What is interesting is that word/term pointless has so negative meaning. Why would pointless be something so bad?

You mention Jesus but what is the meaning of his existence? What will be when he do everything he has to do by prophecy? After that he has no real purpose.