being looked down on because we dont believe and always hearing we`re going to "hell" because we dont believe

Wow, now this is the kind of discussion I love.. I too have thought the same ... wishing I could believe, but still nothing convinces me that the god of the bible is real at all. I am going to read this thread again when I am not so tired to see if I missed something.

The whole subject facinates me despite the fact that I don't believe. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm with ya on this one indeed.

Do you recognize God in the form of a flower?
In an inspired melody?
The whisper of the wind?
The softness of the new fallen snow?
How about in the face of your persecutor?
Do you recognize God in the person of your villain?
Only when you see God everywhere do you see God at all.

People can't seem to let others believe what they want, there is very
little tolerance, let alone actual allowing. I believe in God, however I am not religious. Live and let live already.

I believe in God, and also the bible. There is a statement that keeps me form explaining my beliefs to people who act stupid about my belief: "do not cast your pearls amongst swine".

And so, I dont.

Closer than your very breath.

INDEED

I'm not referring to the God of the bible. I love the bible, great stories, for me not the word of God, just men.
As michiganman3 says... closer than your very breath.

From an atheist perspective I do not really see much different except the very notion of a god, whether personal, or impersonal. To simply not accept that a god is real does not define any other characteristics for that person. To simply accept that a god could, or does exist in and of itself does not define any characteristics for a believer either.

The idea that man can know the mind of god what ever that word might mean to anyone who might utter it. This is where all of the religious "characteristics" get added as seen fit by the religious authority.
For everyone to stop pretending to have revelationary sources of information without having to prove objectively the factual nature of the information.

If you are to define the characteristics of a supreme being you need to have solid data.

Otherwise we can all come up with whatever metaphysics we want to explain away anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhbccXIp4c

I saw this as a repost and wondered who it was that asked such intelligent questions. I wasn't the least bit surprised when I went back a page to discover the author was Di.

These are truly well phrased question Di.



I personally actually get a bit annoyed when people talk in terms of 'believers and non-believers'. Believers and non-believers of what?

This reason this annoys me is because often comes down to a view that people either believe in some Abrahamic religion, or they are atheists. I truly feel that a lot of people feel this way. They feel like either some mythology from the ancient Mediterranean region is somehow an inspired intervention of a Zeus-like godhead, or there must be no god at all (i.e. believers versus non-believers).

From my point of view that is truly lame.

As strange as this may sound I find it impossible to believe in atheism. People who believe in atheism are 'believers'. I can't believe in atheism, it makes no sense to me at all. And it's not that I'm afraid of atheism. I truly have no desire for eternal life. If we didn't exist before we were born, and we cease to exist after we die we haven't lost a thing. I just find that impossible to believe in either direction.

Equally I find it impossible to believe that the creator of this universe could be as utterly stupid, unwise, and basically as big of a jerk as the Mediterranean mythologies make out God to be.

It started with Zeus and his gang, and just deteriorated, IMHO, into the jealous male-chauvinistic God of Abraham who requires blood sacrifices to be appeased. I would never choose to believe such utter nonsense and horror on faith. Why would I even want to believe that the creator of this universe is so lame?

However, that are so many other possibilities besides utter atheism (called non-believers) and the utterly ignorant Mediterranean mythologies who's followers are referred to as (believers).

If I were going to believe in some folklore and mythology, or even use it as a parable basis to believe in some form of spiritual essence to reality I would choose to create my own belief system based on elements of Eastern Mysticism (or pantheism) and various forms of Celtic Folklore and other types of shamanic practices.

In fact this is precisely what I do. Does this make me a "believer, or a non-believer". I don't even know! I prefer to think of myself as agnostic. Although to an outside observer I may very well appear to be a believer in various forms of esoterica.

But even the word agnostic sucks, because when people hear that word all it means to them is that I can't choose between atheism versus some strict dogma. Which is totally false. I reject them both.



Well, again, what constitutes a believer or non-believer? If by "believer" we're talking about someone who holds the belief that some ancient mythology is the inspired word of God an contains his commandments and desires, then I would say the greatest cause of friction is that very belief!

Once a person has convinced themselves that they are the guardian of God's word then all hell breaks loose as history has clearly shown. Those kinds of religious people tend to become extremely arrogant simply because they feel that they hold the ultimate authority in their religious doctrines.

It causes them to denounce 'non-believers' and in this case this term makes sense, because from their point of view a 'non-believer' is simply anyone who doesn't worship their chosen dogma as the word of God.

You talk about "believers versus non-believers" but isn't that a bit of a joke?

What about "believers versus believers"?

Just look at this one example of the Mediterranean Mythologies. The "believers" of the stories of the God of Abraham totally rejected the "believers" of Zeus and totally converted the Greek culture from believing in Zeus to believing in the God of Abraham (Yahweh).

Then as the religion grew it split and fell into four major factions; Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. In fact, the protestors went on to form a multitude of opposing factions called "denominations".

So the whole religion has become "believer versus believer", they often hate each other's faiths with a passion. Christians and Catholics hating each other, the Muslims and Jews would love to see each other dead. Talk about friction? The believers hate each other more than they hate atheists.

And the truly sad part is that the people who have chosen to believe in non-dogma-based spiritualities, like pantheism aren't even considered as having valid faiths at all.

It's ridiculous.



The resolution?

In all honesty I feel that the only possible resolution would be for the people who believe that they hold the laws of God in their hand to simply flush those dogmas down the toilet and get real.

Humankind needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They can't be telling gays that homosexuality is a sin and using God as an excuse for their bigoted attitudes for example.

As long as God is held up as an excuse for bigotry we can never have peace. And this is true whether it's a religious person condemning same-gender lovers, or whether it's a Protestant denouncing a Catholic or a Jew denouncing a Muslim simply because they worship a different dogma that is supposedly the word of God?

Clearly no human being or doctrine written by any human being is the word of any God.

We will never find world peace until we get past that asinine notion.

As long as people believe that they speak for God just because they choose to put their faith in some ancient dogma, they will continue to be arrogant and bigoted in the name of God. They will continue to be prejudice in the name of God. They will continue to denounce anyone who doesn't worship the dogma they chose to believe to be the word of God.

Until all those asinine dogmas are flushed down the toilet there will never be any hope for peace.

And it's not going to happen. Getting nations to give up their nukes would be far easier than to get religious people to part with their dogmas. They worship their dogmas as the word of God. And therein lies the problem. Their dogmas are their gods. They worship ancient mythologies.

How do you deal with that?

Thanks for these questions by the way. They were great!

Atheism isn't something someone believes in, its ONLY the lack of a positive belief in theism.

Thats it. Its not an assertion of anythings existence, or any concept.

That is rather hard for folks on all sides to understand.


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


Deism is either the god without the personae, without a will, or the willful god that just got it started and then does not meddle with his master plan. Every way that has ever been defined without reference to anthropomorphic qualities (the very nature of deism) is equivalent to nature, IMHO. This makes this flavor of deism a brand of atheism where only a few words are defined separately, all phenomena are equivalent pre-afterlife (if you believe that as a deist). The initial starter willful god of deism might as well not exist for beings here and now except to understand nature which is the very structure of gods will.

If there exists a being who's manifestation does not interact with nature, or IS nature then the outcome is equivalence with atheism.


Either there is a god, or there is not.
Either god interacts with the natural world, or god does not.
God either has a will or does not, if god interacts with the nature world but does not have a will then god is equivalent to nature as atheism and naturalism see's it and knowing the mind of god is knowing the relationships of all things natural: science.

If god has will and interacts with the natural world then to believe in this being is to be a theist, if its possible to know the will of this being then you can found a religion.

If god has a will but chooses to never interact with this natural world, then agnostics are right and we shall never know the existence of god, but so are the deist's . . . and its pointless trying to know the mind of god based on zero interactions with the natural world you might as well not believe and if you are indeed uncertain then you truly do not believe and are an agnostic atheist.

Nearly every path leads to atheism, or an equivalent set of phenomena. Even the paths that do not lead to an equivalent set of phenomena are fraught with unanswered questions that should make one pause and take an inquiring path to explore these ideas, anything else IMHO is lacking in intellectual honesty.

If you are a deist who believe in an after life ask yourself if you think god is willful or not. If god is not willful then what makes you think you will be after death . . . . If you think afterlife does not involve will, then how is that really an afterlife, how is that really a god?

If you think god is willful and does not interact in the natural world ask yourself why he would after death . . .

If you think god is both willful and involved and interacts(Theist), then you need to study science (the only objective way for us to know the natural world) and ask yourself where this happens, that to me is the only three intellectually honest positions to take given the set of beliefs.(Many turn of the century Christian Scholars knew this and thus studied nature in great detail)

To ignore the questions is to be an ostrich with head firmly in sand.

The fact that there is no proof of any substance to show that he does exist, is not total proof of his non-existence, but is quite a hefty indicator.

It can be logically demonstrated(unless you are blinded by 'faith') that the Bible is not and cannot be the words of god. Millions and millions of people have been murdered and maimed in its honour for a couple of thousand years encounting. If there was a God out there, who cared in the least about any of us, i would have thought he would set the record a little bit straighter by now, one way or another.

Well this truly does come down to a matter of personal semantics.

I can't argue with your use of the word in any absolute terms and I most certainly wouldn't even attempt to try.

However, for me there are three words that we use to describe a belief in a supernatural or spiritual essence of life (forget about a need for any personified godhead).


1. atheism
2. agnostic
3. theism

From my own personal view (and my personal semantics when I use these terms) I use them as follows:


1. atheism

To me, this means that a person actually believes that there is no spiritual or 'supernatual' essence to life. We come into being when we are born. When we die it's lights-out.

To me, that constitutes a 'belief' that there is no spiritual or supernatural essence to life.

This is what I have always felt the word should mean. After all, if it means that you just don't know, then why do we need the next word?

2. agnostic

To me, this simply means that you don't know what the hell's going on. It doesn't mean that you haven't made up your mind. It simply means that you don't know.

If atheism simply means that you don't know, then atheism and agnosticism mean precisely the same thing!

This is why I hold the word atheism to be a flat and outright denial of any spirituality. If that's not what it means, if it just means that you don't know, then atheism = agnosicism and the words are compeltely interchangeble and superfluous.

I perfer to recognize that I'm agnostic and not an atheism. To mean atheism means: "there is no supernatural or spiritual element to life. No life after death. All that exists is this life and when you die that's it. Lights out!"

To me, that's what atheism has always meant, and like I say, to claim that it now just means to be agnostic seems like such a waste of a word.

3. theism

A believe in some form of spiritual essence to life (we continue to live as spirit after we die! And possily existed as spirit before we were born).

I see no reason whatsoever to even require a personified egotistical godhead in this.

As far as I'm concerned pantheists are thesist. In fact, that's why they call it pantheism.

Yes they don't require any egotiscal personified godhead. All they are saying is that our true essence is spirit.

Disclaimer:

I'm not saying that your semantics is wrong. You are more than welcome to think of these terms in your own way. I give plenty of leeway to semantics. As long as I know how you are using a term then I know what you mean by it, and that's cool. We can communicate that way.

So I'm just explaining how I use these terms. To me, atheism means a belief that their is no supernatural or spiritual essence to life.

And since this is how I veiw the term, then for me, atheism is indeed a belief.

When I say that I can't believe in atheism, what I mean is that I can't believe that the universe is just a big random accident that came out of nowhere. Even though I can see how evolution works, there's still the question of why the very laws of physics exist they way they do, and why the atoms have the forms they do and bind together the way they do.

If amino acids are the DNA of life, then carbon atoms are the DNA of amino acids! I'm supposed to believe that this is all just a random accident?

On the other hand, believing in a personified deity doesn't make any more sense. Therefore I toss up my hands and confess with all honesty to any gods or mortals who will listen that I have no clue!

However, when we get into personified Zeus-like Gods that are appeased by blood sacrifices I balk. The idea that the universe is just a random accident makes far more sense to me than a personified God that is appeased by blood sacrificies.

So I will continue to hold that I cannot believe in atheism.

You may not like my semantics, but at least now you understand what I mean by it. I can neither believe in atheism nor support that belief. But you also know very well that I totally reject personified blood-thristy male-chauvinistic godheads.

Well, I don't think Zeus was a male-chauvinist, but I think you know what I mean.

Anyone who uses a fictional book written by a bunch of GUYS to prove god exists is clearly out of their minds, given still to the fact that the majority of those stories are RETELLINGS from other EXISTING mythological stories.

Does this mean God doesn't exist? I didn't say that.

I merely have my own, personal reasons, for knowing that God exists.

I do however see God as a Woman more than as a Man, despite there being no true given gender.

Trying to prove or disprove God is the same as trying to prove or disprove evolution though evolution has much more scientific fact(hear me? I said FACT, as in TRUE, as in PROVEN) if one goes back far enough there are STILL inconsistencies.

Science, like Faith is simply not perfect and never will be.

It is the very nature of this question that makes humans so progressive. It drives us into many different path's.

Could I prove without doubt that God exists? Perhaps but even if I did the question would not be answered for the thirst will ALWAYS be there.

As it should be.

If one could ACTUALLY prove god exists...

It would totally destroy relegion as we know it.

None of them would survive the shock of the small realization that the ritual and dogma they cling to with faithfull desperation is not necessary.

Actually it is incorrect to say that there are inconsistencies with evolution. There aren't any inconsisitences. There may be specific details that have not been fully proven. But those hardly consitute inconsistencies.

Unless you're talking about going clear back to the very birth of what started the whole process, but in order to do that, you can't be stopping with biological evolution, you'd have to consider the entire evolution of the very universe itself.

In that case, the only "inconsistency" is the actual Big Bang itself.

And there are even explanations such as "Inflation Theory" that explain how the Big Bang could have been started by a quantum fluctuation that is totally compatible with all of the known laws of physics.

Of course, then a person could point at the very laws of quantum physics itself as being "impossible to comprehend in intuitively logical terms" and call that an "inconsistency".

But that would be it.

There's nothing "inconsistent" about biological evolution on Earth.

~~~

On the God topic,...

I perfer to think of myself as a mystic.

I believe the univers is mysterious.

Since we have no genuine meangingful defintion for the term 'God' is would be difficult to say whether a God exists. Perhaps we are the entity we are attempting to call "God".

Without a precise definition of what it means to by 'God' we can't say. We can't even say that we are not all-powerful, nor all-knowing. Perhaps we are both on a subconsious level and have just hidden this divine knowledge from ourselves to play a game or make-believe; "I can actually die!" when in fact, being eternal spiritual beings, we really can't do that.

Until we actually know God we can never be sure that we aren't God. Many entire cultures believe that we are.

After all, if God is all that existed before creation, then how could anything become something other than God after creation?

Where would "other than God" be?

That would imply that something else exists that isn't God.

It is perfectly logical to hold a position of being an atheist or lacking belief in a "God". The problem is that "God" must be defined in a manner that can never be truly adequate for the sake of argument. Once defined, the burden of proof is on the one who claims such a thing exists, not on the person who claims to have no knowledge of, or outright denies the existence of, such a thing.

@abracadabra - What is entirely weird is that you recognize this, make a similar argument in a later posting but call yourself a mystic. The argument you make is close to the exact argument that Dawkins and many other atheists use.

Well mystic simply means mysterious. I certainly believe that the universe is mysterious.

Just to again voice my view on semantics.

I've always thought of the words being used as follows:

1. Atheism - a belief that there is no spiritual essence to reality.
2. Agnosticism - a confession that we just don't know.
3. Theism - a belief in a spiritual essence to reality.

If we denounce that set of semantics, then it seems we would need to appeal to something like the following:

1. Antitheism - a belief that there is no spiritual essence to reality.
2. Atheism = Agnosticism - a confession that we just don't know.
3. Theism - a belief in a spiritual essence to reality.

But who ever calls themselves an "Antitheist"?

And how many people are prepared to use the words "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" as being completely synonymous and interchangeable?

If atheist means the same thing as agnostic then I guess I must be an atheist because I'm certainly agnostic.

But I'm definitely not an antitheist.

That all I'm trying to convey.

i belive in doG
there aint a bail jumper he cant catch

Atheism.
Theism.

Why you believe is not important to these terms. The specifics of exactly what you DO believe also does not matter to these terms. Your level of certainty is not important to these words either. Its all about belief or lack of belief.

Atheism just means that you do not believe in god. That is it. Now you could also believe that god CANNOT exist, but that is a claim about certainty isn't it? Theism isn't a claim about certainty in its own right, now is it? You can be an uncertain theist, after all the best of the religious are always asking questions . . .

Theism just means that you believe in god currently, currently you take whatever reasons you have to mean that god exists. This claim is also not a claim of certainty, it is a claim of belief which is based on a scale of certainty. Your certainty could range from just barely believe where any evidence would push you over the edge into non belief or to where you are absolutely certain, but regardless if you hold the positive belief that god exists you are a theist. Faith is not a word just for theism, faith is the indication of certainty. Faith would not exist if theism was a statement of certainty. After all I have faith that my chair will support my weight right now as I type this. However I am agnostic about this faith, it could collapse, I am only claiming certainty in my uncertainty.

Agnosticism is an all together different belief. Originally the term was a hold out. However it really speaks to the nature of certainty where as Theism and Atheism at their most fundamental do not.

You cannot paint these(atheism, and theism) terms to mean anything specific related to the actual belief or lack of belief, they are bottom level words, they are fundamental, you can add things to these beliefs as you rise from this base level which can and would indicate the kind of belief or lack of belief or level of certainty.

Theism being very popular has had many such revisions that take the word to a new level and in respect for the distinction garner a new word, or an addition to the existing word. Atheism has never been that popular and the new revolution that has arisen out of the acceptance of non belief has started to change this . . .

One example of such an addition is Pantheism. You added pan to theism and this represents the kind of belief, to explore the nature of your belief, to detail the things you hold as true and not as true. This is a higher order word than just theism. Theism can NEVER be said to represent the kind of belief. Just as atheism cannot be said to represent any kind of belief, or even a belief at all . . .

Atheism has always been portrayed in characterizations as something bad. People always want to tell the atheist what they believe. Well tough shat, I do not believe in god, no that is not a claim of certainty, just as theism is not a claim of certainty, its only a claim of belief. My statement being that I DO NOT believe. If you think atheism means that god cannot exist then you have now made atheism a claim of certainty which makes it an altogether higher order word than its root theism, which is wrong. I really hope you can understand this distinction . . . . I hope you agree that when speaking of god there are two states of belief along a continuum of certainty just like every other subject, I hope you do not believe that I must reject pink flying invisible elephants could ever exist just because I do not believe they do exist. I hope you accept that I do not believe god cannot exist, just becuase I currently do not believe he does. I do not need to hold a positive belief that whatever imaginary thing you could possibly come up with at any moment in time does not exist. I hope you understand. I really do . . .

Certainty is not a requisite for belief, or lack of belief. Certainty is a requisite for believing something cannot exist. Who even says things like that? Who claims that something cannot exist, most anyone I know says, "well not likely, but anything is possible" I would posit only three groups. Idiots, the intellectually dishonest, and the ignorant who have not properly thought on the topic. Certainty is the fools game.

I am agnostic over all knowledge and so I agree that word IS useless. I am agnostic about those pink flying invisible elephants even thought I do not accept that they exist, which is a lack of belief BTW. We cannot claim certainty about nearly anything minus cogito ergo sum.

Its only use is in getting people with theistic ideas to leave people who do not care for these theistic ideas alone. Its a claim to being certain about humanity remaining uncertain regarding the knowledge of god, where as the other words are independent from claims of certainty even about being certain.

It says you cannot know for sure so leave me alone Mr (a)theist.

What I believe to exist is an asymptote. If all the evidence leads toward the line that is certainty then I believe, I may never be 100% certain, it may always remain only as close as you want to get to barrow a phrase from my math teacher when talking about asymptotes, however If no evidence exists, I lack a belief but remain open to the idea . . . I do not see any other way to be and continue to remain separate from the three groups mentioned earlier. You can be an intellectually honest theist in my dissection of things.

Now what constitutes evidence and whether subjective experience counts is a whole other conversation and to me has more to do with skepticism and critical thinking than theism and atheism.