What religion are you?

[gmd]

Re: What religion are you?

Does anyone know if god(s) existed before religion was invented?

Why do we say god? What if someone here believes in other things? Maybe we are offending them by constantly referring to god?

What if there is a creator but it will not acknowledge us until we display intelligence worthy of its acknowledgment.

In case anyone cares I put other. (now my post has relevance to the thread)

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

But that again leaves my question unanswered. If it's all unprovable, and left to faith in the incomprehensible, then how are we to determine which incomprehensible entity to have faith IN? There has to be SOMEthing to pick and choose what you're going to base your faith on. By the way, how did we come to know this entity even existed if it is beyond our comprehension? Through words written by man in a book. So what we REALLY have is faith in these words written by man. We are taking their word that these things happened, and therefore, led us to discover that a god exists.

Let's look at this another way. The only reason we entertain the possibility of the existence of this divine entity that is beyond human faculty is because our ancestors from thousands of years ago felt it was the only way to explain the unexplainable. We presumed there must be something beyond our human faculty for those things our human faculty couldn't explain *at that time*. As time has progressed, and technology and understanding has advanced, we have found explanations for many of the things that were previously unexplainable. However, in spite of this, our previous explanation has left us in a bit of a dilemma. Even though we have shattered much of the fallacies of just about every religion throughout history, the very definition of divine entities makes them exempt from the very logic and intelligence used to shatter those fallacies. We created the possibility of a divine entity to explain that which is beyond human faculty, and now people refuse to delete the possibility of a divine entity because it is beyond human faculty. In other words, we used logic to create a god, yet we can't uncreate him because he is beyond our logic.

Yet another thing to ponder on. We get so caught up in these debates on focusing on current deities. More over, when we say "god", we automatically assume that "god" refers to the specific deity that the culture we were raised in accepts as the "real" one. But what ever happened to the previous gods and messiahs? Why did people stop believing in Zues, or Osiris, or Mithras? Why have human beings moved on from one god/gods, to the next throughout history? By its very nature, NO god can be proven OR disproven, so how can faith possibly come to an end in one god(s) or savior, and begin in another? Why did our former saviors become mythologies and folklore? What's keeping that from happening to the current gods and saviors? Can we not apply the same reasons that took down Osiris and Mithras to Jesus, or Mohamed? To God, or Allah? If not, why?



"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... logic can be happily tossed out the window." -- Stephen King

Because you left my question unanswered. My point being: You can neither prove or disprove the existence of God using scientific criteria so it's irrelevant what one chooses to believe, it's all belief in the end.

[Armanen]

Re: What religion are you?

Who says that all those Gods from the past are not different forms or branches of one Divine Creator?

If you chart this historically then you make the case that since people have believed in different gods than what they may believe now then it is all man made. But no one will ever know why people from all over the world decided to believe in a higher being. Some say to explain natural happenings and whatnot, but is that the only answer or even the correct one in all cases?

If you take time to study mysticism you will see how it is not all black and white as traditional theists and atheists try to make it out to be.

[Siggie]

Re: What religion are you?

Who says that all those Gods from the past are not different forms or branches of one Divine Creator?

If you chart this historically then you make the case that since people have believed in different gods than what they may believe now then it is all man made. But no one will ever know why people from all over the world decided to believe in a higher being. Some say to explain natural happenings and whatnot, but is that the only answer or even the correct one in all cases?

If you take time to study mysticism you will see how it is not all black and white as traditional theists and atheists try to make it out to be.

This book gets at some of that...

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Believe-Search-Science/dp/071673561X

[Armanen]

Re: What religion are you?

This book gets as some of that...

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Believe.../dp/071673561X

Thanks, I will add it to my cart to purchase later.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

The fundamental assumption upon which science operates is that the natural world is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

The assertion of god's existence does not contradict science as we understand it. Since the assumption stipulates specifically that god exists in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe.

Conclusion: God cannot be proven or disproven.

Hence the difference between when someone says "I do not believe in god" versus someone who says "God does not exist" or "There is no evidence for the existence of God."

If there is any mistake in my argument, someone please point it out.

[Sip]

Re: What religion are you?

That's exactly it ... the concept of God or Gods is not testable and therefore cannot be proven or disproven. But by the same token, if you are open to the notion of existence of one God, you cannot be closed to the idea that maybe there are multiple Gods.

But if you INSIST that there is ONLY one God, then I think Stephen Roberts said it best:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[gmd]

Re: What religion are you?

The fundamental assumption upon which science operates is that the natural world is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

The assertion of god's existence does not contradict science as we understand it. Since the assumption stipulates specifically that god exists in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe.

Conclusion: God cannot be proven or disproven.

Hence the difference between when someone says "I do not believe in god" versus someone who says "God does not exist" or "There is no evidence for the existence of God."

If there is any mistake in my argument, someone please point it out.

but is it not valid to question why someone may believe in the existence of something that cannot be proven at this time? I think the way one can argue for a belief in god(s) can be used as an argument for belief in any manner of beings beyond this physical world. so if we go down this path why stop only at gods or devils? i question why people choose to spend their lives subscribing to an unknowable force as a reason for their lives and also the dictator for how their lives should be lived (especially when the same code is extended to judge and dictate to others)

[Siggie]

Re: What religion are you?

Thanks, I will add it to my cart to purchase later.

Just found out there's a new edition.

http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Believe-2nd-Skepticism/dp/0805074791/ref=pd_sim_b_31

[Crimson Glow]

Re: What religion are you?

Because you left my question unanswered. My point being: You can neither prove or disprove the existence of God using scientific criteria so it's irrelevant what one chooses to believe, it's all belief in the end.

...where did you ask a question? And that point has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm asking or addressing, which is who told you (and the rest of us) there's a god in the first place, and why do we assume that those people were right? Though it's changed shape, form and name many times over throughout history, the idea that there's a god or gods was a random thought of ancestors from 10k+ years ago based on nothing but an assumption about the unexplainable, and today, you tell me we can't disprove god(s) because they're not of this world? Think about it. Under your premise, ANYONE could claim ANYTHING about the supernatural/non-material world, and it would be protected under the "can't prove or disprove the supernatural by scientific criteria" clause. But that's not the reality of what happens, or how we react when we make OTHER supernatural claims, is it? No. Instead, we demand proof that this person's claim is valid, and not a hallucination, a misunderstanding, a rouse, etc. So why is it we apply logic and scientific criteria to other supernatural phenomenon, but not to god? Quite frankly, I find it akin to minorities crying "racist!" every time they're rightfully called out on doing something wrong, while whites can do nothing of the sort in like situations.

The problem with this premise is it's based on someone's CLAIM that there is an entity known as god, and that this entity is beyond our comprehension. What makes this so, other than words written by men? Nothing. It is merely an elaborate script for the oldest fairytale. In other words, you're giving me the premise to the nature of a made up, fictional character. I could say the same thing about Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China. You can't disprove Lo Pan exists, because he is not of this world. But that's only relevant to the context of the movie (or ancient Chinese myths and legends). In reality, the nature of this character does not matter outside of the movie/Chinese mythology, because the character is not real. Same applies to a current deity. What difference does it make if the BIBLE (or any holy book) CLAIMS that god is beyond our comprehension? That only matters to the plot of the fictional story.

Basically, what we've done is opened up a book, read a wild and ridiculous claim, and said, "d'oh! We're f*cked. It says right here that we can't disprove this book because the creator of it (those writing for him, anyway) says so right here. He's beyond our understanding. Welp....guess he's got us there. We'll just have to believe. PWND!". Name me another instance were we use this kind of mentality. Tell me of another book making supernatural claims (aside those involving deities) were we just ASSUME the words written are true, therefore, blindly believe in their claims. Talk about a foolproof plan. Just like Stephen King said, once you except the primary premise of what god is, there's really no way to refute it. The question is, how or why do/did we accept the primary premise of god in the 1st place?