I'm that person. I believe there is a God, or rather, i believe that there is actually is a higher power controlling the law of nature. Does that make any sense at all?
I don't have anything against people different religions, I just think that people with a religious belief tend to rely to much on their religion.
When they want something, they go pray rather than try their best to get what they want. For me, want one thing just go and work for it.
when someone bad happened, they got comfort from thinking it's god will and they got peace and lessen their pain, but i would rather self-heal myself.
so, what do you think i am?
Yes. In fact, I would say that's the best way to be, if you insist upon believing in such things. Religion tends to take a fairly harmless spiritual idea, and turn it into a business, compromising it's own claims of moral superiority and doing more harm in the end.
Well for the most part I'd say that's becoming true of most people these days. I for one no longer affiliate myself with any particular denomination. For a long time I've felt that I shouldn't be learning about god from someone on stage telling me their opinions. I should be trying to find him for myself; find my own truth essentially. I do not think there is anything wrong with it, and actually it's probably better to learn for yourself. It prevents that whole "using religion to control people" business.
@ topic title:
Of course it's possible:
"I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn God" - Now you believe in God without believing in any religion.
But really, why shouldn't you make your own religion? It's exactly what I'm doing, based mainly on evidence, chains of thought beginning from that evidence, and occasionally, just the way things 'should be'... taking the option that is most 'elegant'.
Mainly it's for myself; I had been putting off the task of figuring out 'religion' for a while, and I decided it was too important to ignore any more. I will post it up, maybe even write a book too though... It'll be interesting to see if anybody else agrees with it.
I thing you are from Sweden!!!!
That is the common thought here!
We are genetically programmed to think about a god.... So it is natural!
You can believe whatever you want. Even if you don't want to put a label on it, you can still believe in God.
I think a person can believe what ever they wish. If you believe in something then you can achieve and that is wonderful.
The most amazing thing to me is that God, a real living being although not human, nor physical, nor easily found - is and will always be above human religions.
Sure, you can believe in God without following a religion. Or you can be uncertain if there is a God while keeping an open mind to the possibility. I believe that's called agnosticism.
You could even believe in many gods and goddesses if you choose, and believe that they are all just parts of one divinity so large it can't be comprehended as a whole and must be broken into anthropomorphic archetypes.
Or you can believe that The Invisible Pink Unicorn and The Flying Spaghetti Monster are having a tea party in orbit around Saturn and laughing themselves silly over our antics. 
It's your head, fill it however you like. | Jinx wrote: |
| Or you can be uncertain if there is a God while keeping an open mind to the possibility. I believe that's called agnosticism. |
(No, it's called atheism. Agnosticism is something else.)I thought atheism was the absence of belief in deities. So how can an atheist have an open mind about the existence of God? An agnostic can be both an atheist and a theist, but a theist cannot be an atheist and an atheist cannot be a theist?
How many times do we have to go through this?
Do I believe that string theory is an accurate model of 'reality'?
Nope.
Have I got an open mind? Yep, certainly. Bring me some evidence and I'll be happy to change my opinion.
Atheists don't necessarily think that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, I am certainly willing to be convinced. It's pretty unlikely, I admit, but it wouldn't need too much effort from an omnipotent being to provide a bit of convincing evidence...
From my understanding atheists don't believe in a god (we might say, "yet"?). Because they have not seen any evidence to his/her/its existence. This shouldn't imply that they're completely close minded to the idea. Just that they perhaps don't believe/trust faith in place of a lack of factual evidence?
| Aredon wrote: |
| From my understanding atheists don't believe in a god (we might say, "yet"?). Because they have not seen any evidence to his/her/its existence. This shouldn't imply that they're completely close minded to the idea. Just that they perhaps don't believe/trust faith in place of a lack of factual evidence? |
Mm, yes and no. Your description of atheists isn't wrong, and it actually does correctly describe the vast majority of atheists... but it is incomplete.
Because some atheists do deny the existence of any gods - they actually do say "there are no gods, and i am absolutely sure that this is true". They're quite rare, but they do exist. Some atheists are quite closed-minded to the idea that gods might exist.
And not all atheists place any stock in material evidence - some are quite religious, or believe in nonsense like crystal power and feng shui.
Nope, the only thing that makes an atheist an atheist is: if they are asked "does god exist", they don't answer "yes". They can answer "no", "i don't know", "who cares?", "the question makes no sense" etc. ... whatever, as long as it's not "yes". Their reasons don't matter either - it could be anything from "lack of evidence" to "the spirits from Atlantis that i'm channelling tell me no".
As for the matter of open-mindedness - some atheists are, some aren't (actually, by far the vast majority are). Most simply say (to quote Bertrand Russell), "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence.". The funny part is that the evidential requirements for most atheists are stupidly low, compared to the evidence it would take to get the average theist to agree that no gods exist. Take one of the posters on this forum, for example, who said that if the Moon had written across the dark side, "Made by Allah, Inc.", then he would believe. But that's not really good proof for God, because an alien species could have done that, or a technically competent modern-day human civilization given enough time and money (it is no more ridiculous a conspiracy theory to call the Apollo mission a hoax than it would be to dream up a conpsiracy where the Christian American government secretly sent probes to the Moon to manufacture this kind of proof for their religion). Still, something like that would be enough for most atheists. We're not really asking that much. Most people say that God created the bleeping universe! What's a few words on a small satellite to something with that kind of power?! It's functionally asking for nothing, considering what we could ask for. | Indi wrote: |
| Still, something like that would be enough for most atheists. |
If there is a God as described in the 'Abrahamic' religions, He must have some reason to think that the world is better without proof of His existence.
My current theory is that 'God' is actually more like a natural force unknown to modern science though.If you ask me if I believe in God, I would assume it's the Abrahamic one we are talking about, to which my answer is a very clear "no". That particular God is no more real to me than any of the other countless Gods we have abandoned over time. It is just far too silly of an idea; an all knowing deity that happens to behave like a spoiled child. No dice.
I don't ask for evidence(other than in hypothetical arguments), because there is none, and there never will be. If there was going to be, there would have been some by now, provided by this great being. Zip, zilch, nada. Ahhh but then we come to "faith"...
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| If there is a God as described in the 'Abrahamic' religions, He must have some reason to think that the world is better without proof of His existence. |
And this is something that many religious people have told me over the years. Evidence would actually negate the purpose of faith, they said. Well, what is the purpose of faith, I ask? I have been given many answers about this. Some say the purpose of faith is to have the ultimate trust, to give yourself over to a power that you can't even understand, and simply trust in it.
Total cop-out, as far as I'm concerned.
To me, trying to prove the existence of God is an enormous waste their time.
If it's faith you have, then stop looking for evidence.
If it's evidence you need, then stop looking for God. | Ophois wrote: |
If it's faith you have, then stop looking for evidence.
If it's evidence you need, then stop looking for God. |
Excellent point. Also why I wonder at all the debates as the two are on completely different levels. I found this quote that was quite meaningful to me:
| Quote: |
| Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof |
by Ashley Montague, British American Anthropologist (1905-1999)
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/ashleymont102365.html
You've added a different dimension though. | Ophois wrote: |
To me, trying to prove the existence of God is an enormous waste their time.
|
Only if you fail. ^.^ If you actually succeeded in at least proving it to yourself (even if nobody else believes you), you'd probably consider it the best-spent time of your life... (Because if God is real, then heaven and hell are probably real as well.)
As I said earlier, I don't think you'd succeed like that, because I don't think 'God' as the Abrahamic religions define Him exists. But who knows? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| (Because if God is real, then heaven and hell are probably real as well.) |
I can't really agree with that. For me the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" have been created by human beings and are terms that are relative to our own human experiences. | deanhills wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | (Because if God is real, then heaven and hell are probably real as well.) |
I can't really agree with that. For me the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" have been created by human beings and are terms that are relative to our own human experiences. |
And God isn't? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | (Because if God is real, then heaven and hell are probably real as well.) |
I can't really agree with that. For me the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" have been created by human beings and are terms that are relative to our own human experiences. |
And God isn't? |
Most of what we learn about Him is also created by man, agreed. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| If there is a God as described in the 'Abrahamic' religions, He must have some reason to think that the world is better without proof of His existence. |
Why does that follow?
If there is a god as described in the Abrahamic religions, then that god is capricious and not entirely rational, because that's how he's described. But even if that weren't the case, why assume that any god that exists and is somewhat similar to the Judaistic god is always rational? Why must he have a reason for anything?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| My current theory is that 'God' is actually more like a natural force unknown to modern science though. |
i don't see any need to suppose that. | Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | If there is a God as described in the 'Abrahamic' religions, He must have some reason to think that the world is better without proof of His existence. |
Why does that follow?
|
Because if He existed, and He wanted there to be proof of His existence, there would be proof.
Since there is no proof, one of those two statements must be false: either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't want proof of his existence.
| Quote: |
If there is a god as described in the Abrahamic religions, then that god is capricious and not entirely rational, because that's how he's described. But even if that weren't the case, why assume that any god that exists and is somewhat similar to the Judaistic god is always rational? Why must he have a reason for anything?
|
He doesn't have to have a reason for wanting or not wanting something, but I feel justified in thinking that an omnipotent being would usually get what it wants.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | My current theory is that 'God' is actually more like a natural force unknown to modern science though. |
i don't see any need to suppose that. |
<.< You wouldn't...
Why not suppose that? (Various razors aside.) | ocalhoun wrote: |
Because if He existed, and He wanted there to be proof of His existence, there would be proof.
Since there is no proof, one of those two statements must be false: either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't want proof of his existence. |
"If triangles made a god, they would give him three sides."
This is the problem i see whenever someone tries to describe gods to me; invariably, they pack the description with loads of unjustified assumptions, because the god is always like them in its behaviour or thinking. But you have a model for this god already - the Abrahamic model - so let's take that model as the source of what we would expect about the god, not what you would do.
There are tons of assumptions hidden in even those two little sentences. The first and most obvious is that the god is rational. But what possible reason would anyone have for thinking that? i don't see anything in this universe that implies that if it had a maker, that that maker would be rational.
Things get even worse if you're using the Abrahamic model for the god. Most definitely that god isn't rational. That god's behaviour is childish, capricious, and quite frankly bizarre. To put it less gently, the Abrahamic god is fricken nuts.
On top of that, if you are using the Abrahamic model for the god, then quite clearly - according to the model - that god has tried to give proof of his existence on several occasions. That would imply (which is corroborated with tons of other evidence) that this god is ripping incompetent.
The bottom line is that if you just look at the Abrahamic model, the god is irrational, insane, and incompetent... so when you posit rational behaviour and competency in that god, it's not coming from Abraham.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| He doesn't have to have a reason for wanting or not wanting something, but I feel justified in thinking that an omnipotent being would usually get what it wants. |
Yet, clearly, if you are talking about the Abrahamic god, that is not the case. Because unless God wanted angels to rebel (which kinda warps the meaning of "rebel"), then obviously something happened that it didn't want to happen.
Things get even fuzzier when you take the stories associated with the god into account. Like what was up in Eden? Did God want Adam and Even to eat the fruit... and if so, why did he punish them? Hell, why did he pretend he didn't know? Just bizarre.
At the most fundamental level, consider this issue: the Abrahamic god has the emotion of anger. Kawha? How can a being who can get anything it wants ever experience anger? Anger is the emotion of extreme frustration. If God really can get whatever it wants, it should never know frustration, let alone anger.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
<.< You wouldn't...
Why not suppose that? (Various razors aside.) |
Razors aside? ^_^; Alrighty then.
Because it's too complicated. How can one force do all the things God is supposed to do? It makes more sense to just assume that God just uses an army of fairies to make things happen. The reason we don't see them is because they erase our memories and alter recording devices to hide their existence.
You see, if you throw out Ockham's Razor... anything goes. That's why we use it - all the time, not just in careful thought. Whenever you stop using it, that's where nuttiness comes in.If anything, I am anti-religion, but I believe in a higher power. The idea of an omnipotent power has been hijacked by power-hungry people the world over, ever since the middle ages.
| Indi wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | Because if He existed, and He wanted there to be proof of His existence, there would be proof.
Since there is no proof, one of those two statements must be false: either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't want proof of his existence. |
Things get even worse if you're using the Abrahamic model for the god. Most definitely that god isn't rational. That god's behaviour is childish, capricious, and quite frankly bizarre. To put it less gently, the Abrahamic god is fricken nuts.
|
Even the childish and insane can still want something and attempt to get it... Heck, even plants can do that! If God wanted something, wouldn't He try to get it? And if something omnipotent tries to get something, how can it fail?
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | <.< You wouldn't...
Why not suppose that? (Various razors aside.) |
Razors aside? ^_^; Alrighty then.
Because it's too complicated. How can one force do all the things God is supposed to do? |
Simple. It doesn't.
A lot of the things 'God is supposed to do' aren't done, or are effects of things other than the 'force' I'm talking about.
The thing I'm talking about could only be compared to God as a loose analogy. The two are very different in most ways.I have a religion, but I sometimes think about that too. I think it's possible to believe in God but not belong to any religion. I am a Catholic so I naturally believe in God. but if someday the God I believe in was proven false, if someday Jesus was proven to have never existed at all, I won't be devastated. I believe in the teachings and if the source of these teachings turn out to be nothing, I'd still be living in this world following the teachings cause in my heart I believe it's right.
