How many of you do and don't believe in God?

[Frank Merton]

Well, no, I don't think there is a god, in the sense of a person or being not subject to the rules of existence. There may be beings more powerful than we are. That's all I would say on it, since we don't have any really convincing reason to think even such beings exist (except perhaps the laws of probability).

The funny thing is that the conclusions many draw from such atheism are not true for me. For example, I am reasonably persuaded that we survive individual death, that prayer and ritual have power, that mind is not entirely physical (although probably more physical than we like to admit), and, finally, that human religions stem from unknown sources similar to those from which human art and love and compassion and so on stem.

This is my first try at posting something. I hope I'm doing it right. My hope is that participation here will help me frame and develop my views. Although I see the rules do not allow correcting someone's English, please do so for me. I am not a native speaker even though my English is fluent, it can always be made better.

[Frank Merton]

I honestly believe that people do the best based on what they know, if they knew better they would do better (and I do mean truly KNEW OR KNOW better not just in principle or theory or a socially functioning level of morality, but in seeing within themselves what motivates their words and actions in different situations).

The vast majority want to do what is right.

[GoldenWolf]

The vast majority want to do what is right.

I don't know about that^

[Frank Merton]

I don't know about that^

Of course we don't know. I think I read somewhere that a good assumption to make in managing a business is that your employees want to do what is right, that there are very few who will deliberately sabotage things and that they should be trusted (although of course if money is involved one still hires auditors).

I know this is anecdotal, but I have known some people who I thought were misguided, and a few who had specific problems (such as addictions) that led to problematic actions, but I don't think I've ever known anyone I could describe as deliberately doing wrong.

[GoldenWolf]

Of course we don't know. I think I read somewhere that a good assumption to make in managing a business is that your employees want to do what is right, that there are very few who will deliberately sabotage things and that they should be trusted (although of course if money is involved one still hires auditors).

I know this is anecdotal, but I have known some people who I thought were misguided, and a few who had specific problems (such as addictions) that led to problematic actions, but I don't think I've ever known anyone I could describe as deliberately doing wrong.

I know alot of people, way too many, it's like they are proud to be evil and psychopaths.

[Mr Walker]

Oh really now. I would argue that these are the actually the majority of religions. God-kingdoms, where the ruler is the personification of god, were historically the rule rather than the exception. And they continue today with e.g. islam, where the ultimate goal is to create the world-wide Caliphate, where the Caliph is both worldly ruler and the executor of Shariah law.

That is not what a study of human history show us to be true. Many leaders used religions to make themselves "god kings" or rulers by "divine right" but they did not begin the religions or the beliefs of people. These evolved from different beginnings and became ordered and categorised via human's innate need to group, label, categorise etc. In the process this ALWAYS creates divisions between one thing and another. And people chose which group to belong to and reject others as different, and thus either untrustworthy or at worst dangerous. Think about sporting allegiances or family squabbles or civil wars. Even racism is a form of this process.

Modern humans tend to reject the "god king" proposal because of a growth in other forms of thought, like democracy and individualism, but happily stick with the "god" proposal.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Zaphod222]

That is not what a study of human history show us to be true. Many leaders used religions to make themselves "god kings" or rulers by "divine right" but they did not begin the religions or the beliefs of people. These evolved from different beginnings and became ordered and categorised via human's innate need to group, label, categorise etc.

With thousands of religions that we know of, I am impressed by your claim that you have studied all of them. Hard to believe though.

But I see now what you mean by the origin of religions that you talked about before is simply the innate willingness of people to accept irrational belief systems. Sure, that is part of of human psychology. I don´t think anybody argued against that.

But your claim that somehow all religions are related or even compatible is and remains pure wishful thinking. The belief systems that different people accept (or have to accept, in case of theocracies) are vastly different.

[The Silver Thong]

That is not what a study of human history show us to be true. Many leaders used religions to make themselves "god kings" or rulers by "divine right" but they did not begin the religions or the beliefs of people. These evolved from different beginnings and became ordered and categorised via human's innate need to group, label, categorise etc. In the process this ALWAYS creates divisions between one thing and another. And people chose which group to belong to and reject others as different, and thus either untrustworthy or at worst dangerous. Think about sporting allegiances or family squabbles or civil wars. Even racism is a form of this process.

Modern humans tend to reject the "god king" proposal because of a growth in other forms of thought, like democracy and individualism, but happily stick with the "god" proposal.

Who created god. the only answer that is plasauble is man as man exsisted before a god was created.

[Frank Merton]

I know alot of people, way too many, it's like they are proud to be evil and psychopaths.

Even one would be too many. I am just not that pessimistic and have to wonder what sorts of people you know who are like that. I've known hardened criminals and while what they do is certainly evil, they don't see themselves that way but usually find excuses and rationalizations. This indicates that in fact they understand the wrongness and find a certain discomfort.

We are told that there exists a family trait called sociopathy that renders the person incapable of forming a conscience, and that those who prey as con artists on the elderly are usually like that. Also that serial killers are sometimes sociopaths. This is hard for me to imagine, but that such evils exist in the world is beyond doubt. They also must be a very small minority.

Still, even if they are without conscience, it would seem to me that over time they would learn that in the long run avoiding such acts is going to be to their benefit. Otherwise they end up in jail or worse. That is the way society functions, it is the way the universe functions. What you sew is what you reap.

[GoldenWolf]

What you sew is what you reap.

I'm still waiting for them to reap the sorrow the sew.

[Frank Merton]

I'm still waiting for them to reap the sorrow the sew.

Yes and sometimes it seems we wait forever. Maybe in the end there is no justice. Still, I think the evidence says things generally and at least approximately do balance out. People who do good turns to others get good turns done back to them. Now this is not a reason to do good turns, just an observation. People who commit crimes sooner or later end up arrested and imprisoned.

I know a once wealthy man who lived nearby and who made his fortune exploiting Vietnam's native trees illegally and to great harm to the environment. I need not go into too much detail spelling out how he eventually was destroyed.

Sometimes our rewards are nothing more than self-worth and pride, sometimes our punishments are nothing more than guilt or shame or fear. They all serve to balance the scale.

[ohioguy74]

I believe in god.

[Ultima Weapon]

People who commit crimes sooner or later end up arrested and imprisoned.

Not always unfortunately... Not always...

[Mr Walker]

With thousands of religions that we know of, I am impressed by your claim that you have studied all of them. Hard to believe though.

But I see now what you mean by the origin of religions that you talked about before is simply the innate willingness of people to accept irrational belief systems. Sure, that is part of of human psychology. I don´t think anybody argued against that.

But your claim that somehow all religions are related or even compatible is and remains pure wishful thinking. The belief systems that different people accept (or have to accept, in case of theocracies) are vastly different.

Oh yes. But tha tis not what I was talking about, at least. I was talking about the nature, form, and function of religious codification of spiritual beliefs. Like i said in an earlier post. Each book has a different content, yet all books are the same, basically, in nature /form and function/purpose.

[Mr Walker]

Who created god. the only answer that is plasauble is man as man exsisted before a god was created.

If you speak of god as a physical being then god certainly existed before man, because god is a more evolved and older being than man. Only as man evolved self awarenes could he recognise and categorise gods. This is the same for all physical forms in man's environment. Eg, trees/birds existed before man but man only recognised catalogued named and gave parameters to trees/birds as we evolved the abilty to do so.

If you speak of gods constructed by humans, then humans lived first, and created those gods out of their sapient self aware thought processes. BUT there will be earlier evolved sapient beings on other planets around the galaxy who conceived the concepes of god befoe humans were evolved into their present form also And thus, even the concept of god predates humanity.

[Frank Merton]

Not always unfortunately... Not always...

Yes, we know this; the point is not that consequences always follow, but that they generally do. Criminals get away with it a few times, and as a result their minds are altered into thinking they will always get away with it, but sooner or later their luck ends.

Even when they are never caught, nature still punishes them, in various ways depending on the person. It may be fear every time they hear a siren, or guilt or shame or abandonment by friends, or just living in a brutal society that is never a source of happiness.

[Tor_Hershman]

I know that there is(are) no meaningful god(s) or devil(s) as I state in this video.

[modas]

I believe in is science, but the question for me is what created science? Because there has to be something what created science. as the drawing if there is sheath of paper but no artist its never going to be the work of art. but it's only my opinion.

hope this makes any sense.

[Rlyeh]

I believe in is science, but the question for me is what created science? Because there has to be something what created science. as the drawing if there is sheath of paper but no artist its never going to be the work of art. but it's only my opinion.

hope this makes any sense.

Humans created science.

[modas]

Humans created science.

not the universe.

[Rlyeh]

not the universe.

You didn't say the universe, you said science.

[modas]

You didn't say the universe, you said science.

science includes everything from elements of the periodic table to nature from physics to universe and it allways was there but humans discovered it and made use out of it.

souch as use of metal, combining metal and stuff like that so i hope you get my point.

Edited January 29, 2013 by modas

[Rlyeh]

science includes everything from elements of the periodic table to nature from physics to universe and it allways was there but humans discovered it and made use out of it.

souch as use of metal, combining metal and stuff like that so i hope you get my point.

Science is the knowledge and understanding derived from such phenomena, science comes from the latin word "scientia" which means knowledge.

[Frank Merton]

Defining "science" is an interesting exercise in futility. While a word generally translated "knowledge" is its origin, it does not mean "knowledge."

The best definition I have seen is, "The thing that scientists do." That captures the essence that science is not a thing but a process. Of course, one ends up going round the circle when one is forced to define "scientist" as, "an expert at doing science."

I think of science as common sense -- organized, institutionalized and taught in universities.

[Zaphod222]

Science is the knowledge and understanding derived from such phenomena, science comes from the latin word "scientia" which means knowledge.

The word comes from "knowledge", but that is now how science is defined. Science is not knowledge; it is the scientic method. I.e. how knowledge is aquired -- not by divine inspiration or a dream in a cave, but by observation and logical thought.