That jesus dude had some pretty liberal thoughts. Buddhism was a nice reaction to the caste system. The method of delivery may not be inherently moral, but it is possible to manipulate a population in a way overall beneficial to society.
He personally, maybe. I didn't know the guy. The religion that grew around him, though ... not so much.
I'm not sure if it's because of his father or he just had terrible editors for his posthumous book release. But some of the stuff in there is quite abhorrent.
We a have so many other books now that contain all those good messages, even a lot more with more relevance to modern life, without all the terrible stuff and non-sense.
It just makes no sense to keep a 2000 old book around for a couple of good messages that are already thaught in many other, more modern stories and context.
i didnt say religion only had bad morals. broken clocks and such.
but christianity in specific has a lot of flawed morals that christians handwave. like Mary being 12 when she gave birth to Jesus, or pretty much everything old testament.
claims of a perfect and just omnipotent god while stuff like that flies is sloppy.
I'm an agnostic theist, I believe in the possibility of god(s) or god-like entities.
There is a quote I resonate with by Marcus Aurelius:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
Exactly! I haven't seen any proof of a god(s) but I'm willing to keep an open mind. At the end of the day if I live life trying to do well, I should be good.
Wow, I had no idea that there was a quote out there that aligns so well with my beliefs. I grew up in a semi religious household but was never forced to go to church. My parents encouraged me to go, not only to theirs but even go with friends that were different religions.
After going to various churches through some really vulnerable times I still don't subscribe to any religion, but I also can't bring myself to go full atheist.
It's a bit wordier (well, most people are wordier than the stoics lol) but Socrates had the right idea too I think:
Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to
hope that death is a good, for one of two things: - either death is a state of
nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change
and migration of the soul from this world to another.
Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep
of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an
unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep
was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other
days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and
nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly
than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even
the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with
the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is
then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and
there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges,
can be greater than this?
If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from
the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are
said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and
Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life,
that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he
might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if
this be true, let me die again and again. I, too, shall have a wonderful
interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax the son
of Telamon, and other heroes of old, who have suffered death through an
unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in
comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall be able to
continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in
that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not.
What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of
the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others,
men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing
with them and asking them questions! For in that world they do not put a
man to death for this; certainly not. For besides being happier in that
world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
Imo the more you think about it the more you realize that "god" is just a very human way to cope with feeling lonely or powerless, and life having no ultimate direction or purpose. People imagine a friend or guardian who has a plan and will set things right, and some use this shared fantasy to make others do what they want.
From the things I've seen in my lifetime I can only assume there's no God, and if there is a God then he's not worth worshipping for letting the amount of suffering exist as there is in the world today.
If there is a god, it takes a special sadist to allow the amount of torment present on earth.
So I prefer to believe there's no higher spirit ravelling in the suffering of all creatures rather than there being a malevolent creator watching with glee as we die a slow, painful death.
I think you could go one step further with this theory and say that humans are not that important at all. I mean, why would we think we are? Because god told us so? Maybe he just said that to account for some variable and left it at that. Hasn't looked back at what we were up to since.
In some distant corner of the universe is a much nicer planet where everyone is living in harmony and peace. We're just the control group :)
When I was religious (I'm not any more) that was something that never actually troubled me. I believed that god was benevolent but that suffering must be necessary in ways that we humans can't conceive of. Who were we to question the grander plan?
But for real, if you go to the comment section on instagram or something comparable, its really toxic compared to Lemmy.
But I'm also a bit worried as mastodon seems to become more toxic over the time, hopefully Lemmy stays the same
Yes, becuse in my family, all the older family members make him real for the younger kids. We actively work together to make Christmas a magical time by telling stories and staying up late to put out presents. I know that Santa is not a real person but I believe I can keep his "spirit alive" by giving heartfelt presents and spending quality time with my family.
I personally am atheist but I will admit that many religions have good teachings. I don't believe in the gods from those religions but I can follow the guidelines to living a good life.
An older family member once asked my siblings and me, as older teenagers, whether we believed in Santa. We scoffed, laughed, and incredulously said of course not.
She responded that she believed in Santa, and she gave this explanation: Santa is a cultural shorthand for generosity. Do you believe in the spirit of giving? Do you want to see smiles on children's faces on Christmas morning? Do you want to make the people you love light up because you had special, almost supernatural, insight into their heart's desire and made it real?
I don't believe a magical man in a red suit gives presents and coal to kids. I similarly don't believe in a white bearded cloudy Jewish giant in the sky.
But I believe that there's something sublime and immaterial in the love we can have for one another, something only partially explained by ecologic survival pressures and biochemistry. I think there is something out there beyond what we can perceive on a daily basis, and for lack of a better lexicon, "spiritual" is as good a term as anyone for the realm of the imperceptible.
So I think there's a God, and I think there's a Santa. I don't understand either, and I think they're neither anything quite like we expect. And God the Creator is certainly an asshole sometimes. But I think there's Someone out there.
Well that’s the issue always when talking about metaphysical beliefs.
There’s the child that beliefs in literal Santa going down the chimney. And there’s the adult that stopped believing in child stories and sees a rich and valuable culture around those stories anyway.
It’s not equivocal, but grown up in an embracing way.
There’s also the grown up in a rejecting way who is never satisfied with either variant, although for some this is just an intermezzo towards the embracing way.
She responded that she believed in Santa, and she gave this explanation: Santa is a cultural shorthand for generosity. Do you believe in the spirit of giving? Do you want to see smiles on children’s faces on Christmas morning? Do you want to make the people you love light up because you had special, almost supernatural, insight into their heart’s desire and made it real?
Santa is a cultural shorthand for consumerism. Going by your reasoning, god is a cultural shorthand for rationalizing one's own wrongdoing, lack of innate morality and misunderstanding of the world.
You can't disprove God because you can keep changing the definition. If I define God as the culmination of everything in the universe, you can't really disprove that.
If you disagree with me, then I can just keep changing the definition of God!
Surely the reason you can’t disprove God is because you can’t leave the universe. Since it isn’t possible for us to know what is outside of our universe we can’t prove or disprove a god’s existence.
The god argument can't be contradicted because it's not based on logic. People can just make up rules for their gods, and they usually don't care if those conform to reality or logic as we know it.
E.g. I can just say that logically disproving my god is a proof of its godhood, because it defies and is beyond human understanding. That's just not something you can argue about.
Assuming you are sarcastic - I agree wholeheartedly.
Look up The Invisible Dragon anecdote by Carl Sagan (in his Demon Haunted World book), or for more serious people - Falsifiability principle by Karl Popper, If you haven't already.
Since science is deductive it's probably impossible to prove the negative there, but I think there's enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you can confidently deny it (unless your god is non-falsifiable, in which case it's not worth discussion).
No, not at all. I went to a christian high school and that experience removed pretty much any doubts I might have had.
I'm a happy atheist, don't really care about all this religious stuff. I don't mind that others believe, just as long as they don't impose their views on others.
I believe there is an all powerful being made of spaghetti and meatballs floating somewhere out there. May you all be touched by his noodley appendage!
I went through an existential crisis in my 20s because I was 'told' I needed to be religious but never was. I read a lot of theological and philosophical texts and came to a conclusion similar to yours, if there's a 'God', then they're cruel. I oddly get Pantheism more than Monotheism, because at least it justifies that there's 'good' and 'bad' deities but a lot of them are based on interpretations of phenomena that can now be explained by science.
I took much more to philosophy. I know what I believe is right and wrong morally, and science explains (almost) everything. If there's a 'God'-like figure, they can suck my nut sack because I believe they are at best indifferent, at worst, evil.
And of all the bad things, I find it quite disconcerting how many bad things organized religious have and continue to do.
As someone raised Catholic, the organization leading it has, to say the least, a troubled history. This happens unopposed by an all-knowing, all-powerful being under the excuse of free will?
Last year my youngest was in kindergarten around the time of St. Patrick's Day here in the U.S. At some point they went out to recess and came back in to find little chocolate coins wrapped in gold foil on their desks. I picked him up after school and as we were driving away I asked how school was. He told me that he thinks leprechauns might be real. I asked what made him think they might be and he gave me the "we left class and when we came back there was chocolate on our desks" answer. I asked him if something else could have happened, like a teacher leaving them, and he said no, because the door is locked when they leave. I told him "maybe it was a rainbow unicorn who left the chocolate." His response was very dismissive. He said "no Dad, that's impossible because rainbow unicorns don't exist." He's a sharp kid but he's not quite at the logic stage. :)
Kids brains are funny. I used my superior child logical skills to proof to my parents why santa is not real, I was so proud... And a few years later I had an absolute psychological meltdown crisis after realizing that the Easter bunny isn't real 🥲
No. There is no God and if there was one, most of the gore crimes in the pasage of history should have been stopped like human trafficking, slavery, child abuse and countless murders. If there is one and he is simply watching, he should not be worshipped.
I have a more abstract view on it. God is Universe. A world at large with only the will to exist. I just don't use the word God because of the implications.
Kinda similar thinking, but if there's a creator, I think they intended Earth (or the universe) as a simulation or like an ant farm. No judging, just for entertainment. They probably love the stupid shit we do as humanity.
There have been over 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects worshipped by humanity since we started writing our history, and likely countless more that have been lost to time. The majority of these worshipped deities are no longer believed in, and the fact we as a species have been unable to move beyond the fairytales of omnipotent gods told during the bronze age will never cease to amaze me.
Religion in all its various current forms is a tool of manipulation used against the masses to keep them complacent and scared. That being said, even though I tend to lean towards an atheististic view, I will concede that the possibility exists of a higher life form we may consider as a god. If such a life form does exist, it would be so far beyond our ability to comprehend that any claim to know what it expects of us is pure human foolishness or intended maliciously to control the ignorant.
I live my life by the simple principle that if a god exists and is a just god then I'll be judged by my actions in this life, whether I caused harm to others or lived well doing what I'm able to make the world better, and not on whether or not I believed in and worshipped them. If a god exists that would punish me for all eternity for not worshipping them, then they are not a just god, and as such would be unworthy of such devotion. Bottomline is we will never know as long as we live, and with as short as our lives are, why waste them worrying about what we can never know. Just live your life well, be kind to others, and be the best you that you can be.
Nope, if I’m wrong and there is a god I plan to kick their dick instead out for all the anguish and suffering that could have been avoided. god cannot be both omnipotent and all loving. Only one or the other.
Also, in the loosely remembered words of Ricky Gervais, “if all recorded history of religion, and of science were suddenly erased from the earth; in a thousand years you’d have all the science back exactly the same, but the religions would be totally different.” Which I find very compelling.
In regards to that quote, there is at least one exception though.
The Naassenes died out in the 4th-5th centuries CE and their two written works were lost until one was recovered in 1945 and they remain largely unknown by lay audiences.
And yet a number of their beliefs are quite alive and well today with no direct influence on that modern resurgence, such as the idea that we are in a non-physical recreation of an earlier world where life occurred spontaneously, that the creator of that recreation was itself brought forth by an original humanity, and that the proof for this lies in the study of motion and rest - particularly around the existence of indivisible parts of matter.
None of that was scientifically indicated in antiquity.
And yet today we see many of those ideas among theology/philosophy inspired by modern science and technology.
The idea that we are in a recreated non-physical simulation of an earlier evolved physical world.
The idea that AI, brought forth by an original humanity, could be running such a simulation.
And many proponents of that theory look to physics (the subject which studies motion and rest) for potential evidence, with many incorporating the now scientifically proven evidence of quantum mechanics (indivisible parts of matter) to support that theory.
So the quote is factually incorrect. There was a set of religious beliefs that was effectively eradicated from public consciousness for nearly two millennia yet has ended up resurging again independent of the original set of beliefs.
(And frankly given developments in just the past 5 years, this rare exception to that quote probably should get a closer look then it has to date.)
Interesting. Can you provide some documentation on the Naassenes and their belief that we are in a 'non-physical recreation of an earlier world'? I did some brief research just now but couldn't locate this.
The Naassenes are documented in Hippolytus's Refutations volume 5, and one of their primary religious texts was the Gospel of Thomas.
Before digging into those texts themselves, it's also important to know the philosophical context in which they arise, specifically the debate between Epicurean material naturalism and Plato's theory of forms vs images.
The TLDR on the background is that the Epicureans rejected intelligent design and claimed life evolved through natural processes, and Plato claimed there was a spiritual perfect form with a lesser physical incarnation (and then there could be images of physical things like an artist illustrating a physical bed that was modeled from the spiritual form of a bed in Republic book X).
You see this topic discussed early on in Christian circles in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which touched on certain ideas later found among the Naassenes like the dual Adams:
It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual.
1 Cor 15:44-46
So starting with the Gospel of Thomas, you have:
Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
Thomas 22 (worth nothing that the Coptic here explicitly used the same Greek term for images as Plato used)
Later on, in describing its creator figure, it expounds:
Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.'
If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.'
If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"
His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?"
He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."
Thomas 50-51 (again, it's worth remembering that the transition from physical to spiritual embodiment was supposed to happen when the new world arrived per Paul's letter, so the over-realized eschatology here indicates spiritual embodiment)
There's an additional indicator in Thomas is here:
Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
Thomas 83-84
The challenge with discerning the earlier ideas of the Naassenes in Pseudo-Hippolytus is twofold - one, it is written by the opposition, and two, this is after Gnostic circles were heavily influenced by Neoplatonism which flipped the script back from "physical first then spiritual" (as Paul cited) to Plato's spiritual first then physical (which belies the earlier use of images in Thomas as Plato's images only followed physical incarnation and it was form that preceded the physical - a term absent in Thomas).
Yet still you have indications breaking through in Refutations for the Naassenes:
They rashly assume in this manner, that whatsoever things have been said and done by all men, (may be made to harmonize) with their own particular mental view, alleging that all things become spiritual. [...]
And the aforesaid images are figures of the primal man, and of that spiritual one that is born again, in every respect of the same substance with that man. [...]
We, however, he says, are spiritual [...]
That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible — (I mean) a point — will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed, the point which is indivisible in the body; and, he says, no one knows this (point) save the spiritual only.
Hippolytus's Refutations V
Looked at through the lens of canonical Christianity, these ideas say one thing, but through the lens of Thomas (the group in question is the only one explicitly said to have been following it) the interpretation is wildly different.
In Thomas, the cosmos is already a dead body (like Leucretius's claims the cosmos was like a body that would one day die). The rest for the dead and the world to come has already happened but we don't realize it. The images around us are its creator's light, a creator that was eventually established in light and took on earlier images. Adam (which can be translated as humanity) came from great wealth but is now dead, and we are allegedly the children of its eventual creator of light (which in Pseudo-Hippolytus is clearly described as having been brought forth by an original Primal Man/humanity).
Also important is that contrary to the canonical interpretation of being born again, in Thomas being born again is literally being born as babes, with "a hand in place of a hand" and "an image in place of an image."
The key component here is the foundation of Epicurean naturalism. That's very present in Thomas, which entertained naturalism as the origin of the soul (saying 29) but lamented and rejected the Epicurean claims of the soul's dependence on the body (saying 87), appealing to an eventual demiurge in line with Plato's ideas as recreating the images of what came before in its light.
By the 4th century when Pseudo-Hippolytus is recording the beliefs, Epicureanism has fallen from favor in the rise of Neoplatonism which muddies the waters a fair bit, and yet you still have repeated claims of its audience actually being spiritual as well as the quite radical idea that its creator was brought forth by an earlier 'man.'
An important context for why these beliefs might have been deemed necessary can be seen in Against Heresies book 2 chapter 14 discussing 'Gnostic' beliefs in the 2nd century in general:
Then again, as to the opinion that everything of necessity passes away to those things out of which they maintain it was also formed, and that God is the slave of this necessity, so that He cannot impart immortality to what is mortal, or bestow incorruption on what is corruptible
If there are limits on divine powers such that what is mortal cannot be immortal, then immortality can only be achieved by being born immortal. Hence the development of beliefs of a second birth from mortal form to immortal. Which in Thomas differs from canonical tradition in that it is not a symbolic ritual but literal birth as a babe, much as its Eucharist is not of consuming a physical body but in consuming the words left behind (saying 108).
If you are interested in this topic, I can't recommend enough reading through De Rerum Natura first. The Naassenes explicitly describe the origin of the world as owed to indivisible points called seeds, language that is uniquely from Leucretius who writing in Latin used 'seed' in place of the Greek atomos. To say nothing for the close parallels between Thomas and the work regarding cosmos as dead bodies or referring to seed falling by the wayside of the path (in Leucretius describing failed biological reproduction and in Thomas describing what survived to reproduce as what multiples following a saying about how the human being is like a big fish selected from smaller ones).
I think this case is far too micro in scale when the question looks at the concept of religion and science as a whole. Of course you’ll have similar ideas across centuries that trend up and down like everything else does. If humanity just went back to have no idea what religion or science is, when they rebuilt their understanding of the world, science would be entirely the same. All of science. Not a handful of theories. The whole thing. People will make new gods though. The planet is completely different now. The reasons religion was even thought about will no longer be the same. The quote really pushes the stance that religion as a concept and whole is made up, and science is not.
If Ricky Gervais ends up in mastodon I’d want to hear their reasoning.
There's no reason to believe that the second round of science would still arrive at earlier theories such as the pudding model of the atom.
That was very much a part of science. But it isn't any longer as a result of experimental evidence.
So your rebuttal glosses over the many failed scientific theories but then uses the failed religious ideas to invalidate any religious ideas.
When in truth, both science and religion have historically attempted to explain the unexplained. The methodology of science is much better, but they have both had many examples of dumb ideas in retrospect.
The reason why the Naassenes had such interesting ideas was that they ended up having incorporated the ideas of Leucretius, who in 50 BCE had written the only extant work from antiquity to describe survival of the fittest in detail.
At the time, there was no experimental evidence to support or falsify such theories. But at the time a religious group working on extrapolating theories built on top of naturalism ended up landing on very similar ideas to what we currently come up with having experimentally landed on evolutionary theory and having turned Plato's eventual creator of worlds (another philosophical influence on the Naassenes) from theory to practice.
So while science is more likely to be right more often as a result of far better methodology, the problem with the quote is that it's a "heuristic that almost always works" and fails to consider the edge cases when religious thought had attached itself to natural explanations which later turned out to be correct.
Effectively, any ideas predicated on concepts which will eventually be experimentally validated should be expected to arise again even after erasing earlier theorizing, as it's the replicability of experimental results that drives that reproduction. And any ideas, whether a part of science or outside of it, which are predicated on eventually falsified ideas have no guarantee of reproduction.
The mistake the quote embodies is the assumption that it's impossible for theological ideas to have attached themselves to experimentally reproducible concepts. But that has happened before, and it meant that the extrapolated theological concepts were also reproduced.
And that's to say nothing for the many reproduced beliefs on other reproducible foundations such as dying and rising gods or katabasis that occurred in completely separate communities. In those cases it was a result of watching the stars and observing the orbit of Venus dropping down below the ground to arise again days later. So you had a central American God navigating the underworld and resurrecting the dead associated with Venus independent and parallel to Ianna in the Mediterranean navigating the underworld and associated with Venus. Or the common beliefs about the immortality of snakes because of their shedding.
The quote is the kind of thing that seems clever but is factually incorrect and betrays the one offering it up as uninformed of what they are talking about despite their self-assuredness in borrowed pithiness.
The quote is not mistaken. It simply states that religion is made up by humans, and science is not. That’s all I think it tries to say and anyone with an understanding of science can see that too. An exception or two where religion and science lined up doesn’t change that religion is divisive and a human creation.
No. And while I will treat those who do with the same level of dignity and respect I grant to everyone, I secretly do think less of them for it (especially when I see them perpetuating the indoctrination with their children).
Nope. Can't understand the reasoning behind "some dude has always existed, you can't see him though or touch him or anything, but he created everything! Also only we few know about this and only recently! All the other beliefs are wrong." Where would a giant fairy come from? No idea.
Spent a good while searching for evidence as a doubting kid. Didn't find anything. I realized the absurdity later on of believing in ghosts and psychics and magic when one of the defining qualities is how they can't be recorded or even reproduced scientifically.
God loves you, watches you, judges you and can do anything, but he won't move a leaf on the floor to tell a crying bullied kid to hold on to hope, that he exists. God is such a human-centric thing anyway. Humans are specks of nothingness, a million years in a tiny planet in a sea of infinite time and space. But yeah some dude created us specifically and we look like him!
I just realized I'm on the God account. 🙏😐 (God wants people to doubt him so he can send them to hell without feeling bad about it?!?!)
I've been raised as a Christian, but always found it weird that there was zero proof and all based on a book. It seems like the longest running book club ever.
I'm still going to church regularly, mainly because I enjoy the company and the church we're going to promotes a good lifestyle: Take care of each other, respect other's people's choices, and be kind.
I really despise the news where people are banning e.g. aborting / LGBTQ /queer in the name of Christianity.
Just respect what other people do!
And I think there are things we can't explain. I recently read "After" written by a doctor who has spent decades to research NDE's and there are many things he can't explain, and scientists still don't know what exactly the conscience is.
How could people have faith in a non-interfering God who allows terrible events, even to young children? If such a God exists but doesn't intervene, then there's no reason to worship it, as its presence holds no significance for humanity. Moreover, it's likely that if this God is real and unaware of our existence, it's because we're inconsequential. This becomes even more plausible if numerous planets similar to Earth with their own life forms exist.
I was almost 14 years old when I lost my faith. I grew up in severe poverty, was severely depressed due to bullying and my weight, and I am LGBT. I found a website listing the inconsistencies in the Bible. I attempted to show my grandmother, who proceeded to laugh in my face. So I kept reading, then I came to a conclusion on my own.
The moment it finally "clicked" it honestly felt like a weight off my shoulders. Like I'd finally was free. My lack of faith hasn't waivered since then.
A god is not required to explain anything in the universe, so I just assume a god does not exist.
In the Cristian sense of god, god has no direct effect on the world, making the question meaningless.
It would be the same as believing there is an teapot in orbit between Uranus and Neptune, too small and dark to see with any telescope. I could say it exists, and no one would be able to disprove me, but that doesn't make it real.
Strangely enough, if instead of a teapot (which at least would be possible, if hugly impractical to find) you use an entity that is invisible, intangible, does not do anything else that could allow it to be detected (most omni-gods), then billions believe it.
If God exists in the Judeo Christian sense, they seemingly fucked off and stopped caring a while back and creation hit perpetual motion status a while back for better or worse
If I was created in their image they totally get why I'm skeptical given the rest of their fan club and also gestures around
If you want to believe in that stuff: do you. I legit hope you get something positive or if it, BUT... Just like crossfit, veganism or astrology; I can hang in a casual conversation, but don't recruit me. I did my research. Not for me, thank you.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the answer is not important but how we respond to the answer (or lack of an answer) is what matters most. Different believers of the same god(s) and religion can either feed and clothe the less fortunate or genocide nations.
If there is one or more god(s) out there and their fundamental core value is love, I would think they would not care if we get the answer right or even care about acknowledgement with prayer and rituals, but they would be more interested in how we treat each other and the world that we live in by keeping love as a core value in our lives.
Absolutely. That section is a response to the monotheistic interpretation of god and the idea of hell. The Greco-Roman gods, for example, would be an entirely different story where power is the core value.
I usually understand God as meaning "Nature". Some of my religious friends also throw in there the notions of "events", " happenstance", "chance", etc. basically a mishmash of everything we cannot explain either because of its complexity, or because we don't have fitting models. On days I feel low, I like to think of the universe as having a purpose, a presence, and talk to it as if my voice reached the furthest stars, penetrated the densest nebulæ. It's obvious anthropomorphism, but it makes me feel a bit better. I can only suppose it is the same for religious people.
I don’t believe in God, although it’s very nice to have somebody to pray to when you are in a bad situation with no control. Like there is still a way for things to go right because even if you don’t have control, somebody has.
I don't, and I find it hard to understand how people truly believe it. I guess it's a search for meaning. I don't get why people feel they need a make believe creator to set their moral compass. Having said that, as long as people don't push their beliefs on others my general philosophy is live and let live.
I have a more complicated answer these days than I used to... the short answer is "no," but the caveats make it longer.
I don't believe in a god in the sense of an all knowing human type being that has thoughts and wishes and passes down commandments -- basically, not the religious kind of God.
At the same time, I appreciate a lot of the Jewish traditions I grew up with, and Judaism has a lot more lassitude around what "God" means to you. To me, it's Baruch Spinoza's conception of God ... basically, just "the universe," of which each person is an integral part.
So in a "college freshman on acid feeling one with the universe," kind of way, sure I believe in God. In a, "He got upset I masturbated way," then no, not at all.
All evidence points to religion being about control of the poor. For example, the Christian old testament was originally written in a language the poor could not read, and translating it was illegal. And almost all have a group at the top profiting off the many that have much less.
I was a gnostic atheist but became agnostic atheist. I am very much against organised religions, but I believe anyone should be able to believe in anything they want. At the conditions that they do not try to shove it down the throat of others or hurt anyone with their beliefs.
On God, the thing that made me change my mind is that you cannot clearly define what God is (the definition varies from person to person), so you can't be certain that it does or doesn't exist. Is God a bearded dude in the sky? Nature ? The Universe ?
As far as I'm concerned, if God exists, it would be very pretentious to think that it gives a crap about us, and even then, it would probably not be benevolent. Especially when you consider the amount of suffering happening on earth everyday.
I believe anyone should be able to believe in anything they want. At the conditions that they do not try to shove it down the throat of others or hurt anyone with their beliefs.
That only works assuming they will never have children, but believers tend to procreate prolifically.
If by "God" you mean an intelligence and power that created everything, including us, no I do not. I don't think any intelligence or wisdom is enough to create this thing called universe or these bunch of universes. To me "intelligence" is a tool developed by some live beings in order to succeed and prosper in the world, not a tool to create and maintain universes.
Nope, not at all, nor in anything supernatural. They tried to indoctrinate me into catholicism, but I realized at age 8 or 9 that it was all a crock of shit.
No and I'm glad I don't, seeing all the ignorance of the world caused by religion. But I still respect people's beliefs (to a degree) like I do with my best friend. He's like a brother to me and he's devout. As long as people don't shove their beliefs into me or talk religious nonsense to me, I'm chill.
You'll have to be more precise on the definition of God. There are quite a lot of them.
The existence of an abstract concept is provable by thinking of it. If there exists an idea that you call God, then a God exists. However, that proves nothing about its properties beyond its mere existence as an idea, including whether it pertains to any real thing. Likewise, all attributes you ascribe to that idea become part of the idea, but do not automatically prove anything about reality.
Thus, the question whether there is an idea called God is trivially answered by asking it at all, but has little bearing on anything at all.
What makes ideas useful is that they group properties, and what makes them real is that there exists an actual thing having all those properties.
Thus, the question whether a real thing exists depends on the properties of that thing, so let's tackle one:
Do I believe that there can be an omnipotent entity? No. The typical argument here is "Can God create a rock so heavy, They cannot lift it anymore?" Either answer contradicts the premise of omnipotence, unless that entity can create logical contradictions, in which case all argument and reasoning is moot anyway.
In particular, do I believe that some variation of the Abrahamic God exists? No, or at least none of those I'm aware of. That doesn't mean I'm not open to being shown otherwise.
However, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving God runs decidedly counter to the existence of suffering, even if we ignore (or exclude) the contradiction about omnipotence.
It is impossible to know whether there is a higher power. I believe that the existence of the universe fundamentally violates causality to begin with, since everything must have a beginning. Thus anything is on the table.
All human conceptions of religion and spirituality are almost certainly wrong though.
I would say I lean towards not believing, but I am open to other ideas. And if god did exist it really wouldn't change anything for me. I would just live as I normaly do
I believe in a power above all else which gave rise to the universe. You could technically call it "God," but I prefer to think of it just as a primordial force of nature, like gravity and such, but far more ancient.
Basically I believe that in the beginning, there was nothing, and that includes the rule that something can't come from nothing. That didn't exist either, so the void just kinda imploded on itself and now stuff exists.
With no rules or restrictions on what could happen yet, literally anything could happen. In a sense, that would make the void omnipotent, but also probably mindless. In my eyes, less like a god, more like the most powerful force of nature to ever exist. Or I guess not exist.
I’ve got hypotheses about how there could be a god, but there’s not really any evidence or any reason I’ve seen to think there is one. While it’s not something that can be ruled out 100%, it seems stupid at this point to believe he/she/it even exists, much less to worship it, not with the state of the world today.
It depends on the definition of God. I believe there might be some being that "made" or "caused" the universe but I dont think they are pure evil or good. I also believe all religions are BS and were invented by humans, although some religions might have been invented under good intentions.
No, and I never really did, even when I went to church as a kid. Then, when I was told not to come back to Sunday School because I asked too many questions, it cemented my atheism.
Yes I do, but I prefer to not be a part of a cult of fanatics (so-called "religion) who only pretend to live their life by some ancient book. Don't get me wrong, the religious books, such as the Bible and Quran do contain a lot of knowledge and some pieces should be followed, but going to church on Sunday just to show everyone how "good of a Christian" I am is unbelievably dumb.
I see God as an entity that helps me, and I do believe in the afterlife. It just seems so bizzare to me, that I should follow some rules that people made, saying that God actually did... The church is a company like any other and I'm not going to support it, ever.
In any specific god? no.
What I believe is that we don't know and will never know anything beyond our own existence. We don't know what we are, in the grand scheme of things (or if there's a grand scheme at all). We don't even know if we actually exist.
I just live my life to the best of my abilities and shrug off all that "beyond my existence" stuff as pointless. If I tried to think about it, I don't believe I would ever come anywhere close to a real answer anyway.
Humans are not evolved enough past our selfishness. If we all lived believing that our actions are being judged by a benevolent father figure, we'd have less people screwing each other over.
I guess that's inevitable. If you think that there is a maker, then you'd have to also explain things like natural disasters. Which leads to thinking that God is mad at us.
This is not considering the corruption of the people in charge.
Well, I understand most religions as populous weapon systems to use as a tool for moral manipulation.
USA loves this shit but even uses these tactics outside of the confines of religion, it's why (some) gun owners feel the need for more fire arms to use agenst thier government, they are convinced it will help them fight back! When in reality the USA government won't use fire arms to stop you lol.
And if you just spend some time learning about geology and how solar systems are made, you will quickly find that ya all of these things work just fine independently on their own and don't need and guidence, most humans will say "hWo dO yoO tHinK maDe tHoSe eLemEnTs???"
Imo that answer might be beyond the short time frame humans will exist.
I used to be a pretty devout catholic but went through the whole crisis of faith. So these days, no.
I still wonder a lot about before the big bang, or wherever the actual "start" of everything was and what sparked it or made the energy exist in the first place, but I don't want to just hand wave it and say God because we don't have an explanation. But its definitly something I ponder
From what I understand, time began at the Big bang, so the concept of "before time began" doesn't really make logical sense in the same way that one cannot go north of the North Pole.
I get that, but then there's the energy that created it, who knows where it came from. even if we say the result of a previous crunch or 2 strings colliding, whatever, there was something before. its difficult to think abouy
I should add that my parents consciously decided not to make me grow up with adult santa claus as part of my life. The idea was that once I'm old enough to decide (somewher 14-18) I can decide for myself. They haggled out a deal with my school where I was free to sit in with varying religious education classes to compare. Eventually having a chat, I was by then big time disillusioned by how little sense everything made, and while at the time I could not understand how my friends could take this nonsense as anything even remotely true, I also knew I could not takei t serious.
So, here I am. Still no adult easter bunnies for me. 😅 I mean, I get why some people find it a useful thing to cling on to in times of desperation, but then I would also say that that is no different than the grifts Theranos or homeopathy or so were/are running. You just milk money out of people's grief, desperation and loneliness. Because of how low the barrier of entry is to most of our religions (after all, our parents make us start with it by default 😢), the buy-in is so low that most people never actively notice this part. Maybe I had it easy, since I would have had to climb that barrier first.
Do I believe in any higher power in general? Well, no. A bit of a shame, I know. But I doubt the Twelve from Final Fantasy are all that real; cool as it would be to meet Nald'Thal or Menphina because of their kickass fight-themes in FFXIV.
Not at all, nor anything supernatural. I was raised evangelical and it really soured me on religion period, and I'm still trying to unlearn many of the harmful teachings. Luckily my SO was of the same mind so I'm eternally grateful for it; that kind of thing can destroy a relationship.
I don't think so in the cure of god as a single being.
I think there's possibly some phenomenon maybe linked to quantum entanglement where everything in the universe is more linked than we realise and there's some sort of awareness in that.
The pagan belief of nature as a God is probably the closest to something I'd agree with rather than modern depictions of god.
One single god God, perhaps what makes a god a god? I do believe we form a network or web of connected consciousness. Who's contained within this web and how interactions work on it is where it gets interesting.
I think what "god" does mean for me, you and others are different. Also same goes for "believe" and "you". I believe, these kinds of topics are way out of our minds' league and even we could comprehend and discuss those things(god, reality, logic etc.) we still would be using wrong tools like language and our current logic system. So both the tools we use, and our intelligence is not enough to answer this question.
But still, if you want a yes or no answer; I would say no without hesitation.
I believe that God is man's creation, but that it has escaped control by man and morphed into a phenomenon that has an existence and an impact on the world regardless of the literal truth of any one religion. An inversion of the Christian creation story, where God created man and then man got out of pocket. The realm of belief where gods could potentially exist is a place where empirical truth is sort of irrelevant, and what is useful holds more sway.
There's a scene in the Illuminatus trilogy that pretty well summarizes my beliefs regarding the supernatural. Spoilers ahoy, you've been warned. It's a rather ridiculous scene, the presumed protagonists Simon Moon and Hagbard Celine have just summoned the goddess Eris to help them do battle with a lake full of Nazi zombies. She emerges as a 50 foot tall bucket of whoop ass and just starts cleaning house. Simon looks at Hagbard and says something like "I could swear you told me that she was just a metaphor for the creative force in all of us" and Hagbard replies "That's what she is when that's what we need her to be. Today we need her to be a Nazi-punting giant."
Unless the question specifies which God it is referring to ( Ancient Greek gods like Zeus or Poseidon, Roman Gods like Apollo or Mars, Judeo-Christian God, Hindu Gods etc - or referring to the concept of a "Creator" in general ) - it can not be answered.
Assuming it refers to a "Creator" - then no, I do not see any evidence supporting that Creator.
God is supposed to be All Powerful AND All Good. The current fucked up state of the Humankind clearly suggests that he (or it) is not both of those at the same time.
God is supposed to be All Powerful AND All Good. The current fucked up state of the Humankind clearly suggests that he (or it) is not both of those at the same time.
I used to think that was a valid argument against the existence of a creator, but the Futurama episode Godfellas actually changed my mind. If an omnipotent benevolent deity does things right, people shouldn't be able to tell they've done anything at all. Plus people have free will, and it would be kind of a dick move to give people free will and then invalidate it by being all interventionist in the world.
That being said, I wouldn't describe myself as a theist. More of an agnostic. I just think it's a bit silly to act as though there is 100% certainty for or against the existence of a God.
If an omnipotent benevolent deity does things right, people shouldn’t be able to tell they’ve done anything at all.
So what's the argument for keeping cancer and other horrible diseases for babies around? An omnipotent benevolent god could have easily gotten rid of them before we figured out modern medicine, so nobody would have known. Yet, here they are.
That's a very narrow-minded way of thinking about the idea of a higher power... If something can be explained by science, it doesn't need an explanation based on anything else. But there are plenty of questions that science can't answer, not because it's not equipped to answer them, but because they ask things which cannot be known for certain; philosophical questions about reality and the meaning we assign to it. Like what is the value of a life? And again, that's not to say that I believe in a higher power; I just think it's impossible to be certain one way or the other.
Those are questions of metaphysics, and you're right they can't be answered by science. But you have to ask yourself, if they can't be answered by science, that is they can't be measured or falsified, then what meaning do they really have? If you think of an unknowable, non-interventional god, their existence is the same to us as not existing, so it has no meaning. Same with any meanings of life, or questions about whether we live in a simulation perhaps, anything you can't measure is just a story essentially, until you can measure it.
A lack of perfection, the existence of tragedy, and the hope of a better world, allow humanity to grow.
If there is nothing bad, there is no reason to struggle, to become better, to improve.
If there is nothing good, there is no reason not to despair, to cling to hope, to improve.
Obviously this is purely philosophical, but as that very Futurama episode states (and many other attempts to tackle the problem of evil), “you have to use a light touch.”
Other excellent examples of this notion are found in the ending of The Wheel of Time, wherein a world without evil and a world without good are explored. Another fine example is in the second era of the Mistborn books, where a deity discusses finding that balance.
There's zero evidence God is real. Might as well say "we can't say with 100% certainty Harry Potter isn't real. In the story the wizards all hide from muggles."
Sure. And it’s totally fair to take that and extrapolate that religion and spirituality are nonsense.
Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion though, and many individuals will have highly personal reasons for finding or rejecting religion and spirituality. This is an area where we ought to embrace diversity of thought so long as it does not harm others, as unfortunately so much has on this topic.
No. I usually call myself an agnostic atheist and follow it up with this thought: say humanity some day, somehow sends a man or a robot to explore a black hole and at the very bottom of that black hole there is an old door with a doorbell. We ring the doorbell and soon after an old man opens the door and says: "oh, there you are. I'm God, come on in". I think it would be kind of arrogant to just dismiss him immediately and say "no you're not! God doesn't exist!" That's why I'm not just a hardcore atheist.
No, but I don't want to rule it out completely. I there is, it's probably nothing like anyone has every thought about. There's a lot about the universe we don't know. I think it's a bit foolish to claim for certain things when we know so little about the universe. One day, it might be possible to measure the soul with scientific equipment, and future people may look back on us and think, "Wow, they actually believed they were only organic, not even realizing they have a quantum soul," the same way we look back at people who thought the earth was the center of the universe.
The world is a complicated place, and what we say now may look foolish or ahead of its time 100 years from now.
I believe we don't want to face the adversity of judging the world in front of us so we ponder "god/no god" to not think about the fact that insurance literally began as a scam or that hospitals can legally extort you for all your worth and it isn't a fair fight or that mental healthcare is least attainable to those who need it most.
No. There isn't a decisive being weighing our souls. We weigh our own conscience, or we don't. Shit is unfair, but you do your best. That way when you feel like shit you know you're really trying. You can role play a big source of approval if you want, just don't be a predator about it.
Believing in the existence of God and believing God is a being that deserves our worship are 2 different things.
Also depends on which god and which denomination. If there are gods, it's more likely than not that there are more than one. In Christianity, God makes a big deal of "not worshipping other gods before me" so I'm just saying. What's considered a God anyway? Do extraterrestrial intelligent life with better technology than us count?
I don't know Watts but The Egg is a nice story. It's quite comforting with the idea that despite everything that goes wrong in the world, it's all part of the learning process of the universe-organism. It's not a God, it can not rule, it simply is and we and literally everything else are part of it. All we can do is to be and try to get by best we can and learn from our experiences to be better.
If I'd have to put faith in something, that would probably be my pick.
I guess you could say I believe in God, it's religion I don't put much stock in.
When I picture God I don't imagine a white bearded old guy living in the clouds with a skin color remarkably similar to mine. It's human folly to put a face on it. Rather God to me is an entity much bigger than myself to which I have duty to have a constructive impact on the world.
I used to as my parent taught me that but now as a grown up , I dont believe in god. I mean I am not sure if god exists so I dont believe in god. Just like ghosts, aliens etc.
God? No...
Gods? Yea sure, i believe in nature, i believe in the balance of everything, and for a lack of giving my faith a focus, i have turned to the norse gods multiple times.
They arent omnipotent, they arent all knowing, but they are beings bumbling around the universe like us, doing dumb ass shit... like all of us... and you can ask for favors, but dont expect to get it granted, because if you arent willing to make a sacrafice, and do the groundwork, why on earth would they help you?
I try to separate “believing” things — ie, concluding that I will accept something as true (helpful) — from “believing in” things, which edges more into hoping and convincing myself (problematic).
Yeah. Even if it intellectually makes no sense, I still do. I never discuss it and would never attempt to convert someone or anything, I really have better things to do. But despite the fact it isn't logical I still always do.
I strongly believe that the universe we are in is one created and run by an intelligent 3rd party.
But unlike 99.9% of the people who share that belief, I happen to also believe that this 3rd party was itself created from evolutionary processes in a world that was not created.
It's a belief that seems to go back at least to the 3rd century CE, but centers around the notion that a chaotic universe where life evolved without design (an idea at least as old as Leucretius in 50 BCE) would eventually create life sophisticated enough to be able to create worlds itself, and that we are in the re-creation of such a universe at an earlier point in time.
One of the wildest aspects of that belief in antiquity was its focus on the notions of Greek atomism and matter being made up of indivisible parts as an indicator of its claim of being in a copy of a higher fidelity original. Especially given that a central component of my own belief in this topic relates to the similarity between quantum behaviors (indivisible parts of matter) and hacks we have started using in building procedurally generated voxel based virtual worlds.
Yes, kind of. I believe there has to be more than can be scientifically proven because otherwise there really isnt much point in this world. I also think there has to be some kind of soul, how else could you be aware of your own mind? Though I wonder if its internal or external and just connected to your body in some nebulous way.
But what I definitely dont believe is that church or anyone who gains material benefit from religion has any connection to god.
And what comes to bible, its good starting point and has many good core ideas. Its also a bit corrupted by greedy and powerhungry people so it shouldnt be relied upon if you can't filter it. Other religions likely also have good ideas in their holy texts though they are likely harder to understand and relate to due to cultural differences.
Ones relationship with god is extremely personal and no one can't order you about with it.
There's the law of conservation of energy: energy can't be created nor destroyed. Then how did we get the initial energy? The laws of physics must have been violated by some kind of god
No. Conservation of mass and energy only prohibit the total mount of mass and energy changing. The universe could have always existed with that mass and energy. We have good evidence that a lot of mass and energy was spread out by the expansion of a much smaller universe around 13.8 billion years ago, but we don't know what the universe was like before that, it could have always existed, or it could have been formed by the collapse of another universe, we don't know for sure.
Anyway, the laws of physics are just empirical observations, they have been proven wrong before. Einstein's general relativity disagrees with Newton's laws of motion and, further study reveled that Newton was (very subtly under normal conditions) wrong.
If you know the math you know that Newton was in fact not wrong, but merely incomplete. Einstein merely added one addendum, which for Newtons experiments was always zero (for all practical purposes) anyway, so in his empirical setting he was as right as he could possibly get.
I think it’s a misrepresentation to call Newtonian physics “wrong”
The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes 'nothingness' as a default state, despite the fact that nothingness seems to be a philosophical concept incapable of actually existing (even in a vacuum there's zero point energy).
So "how did we get something from nothing" necessitates the task of proving a plausible case for nothingness as an initial state.
And the answer of 'God' as a mechanism just kicks the can up the road, as then you are faced with the question of what created God.
If you claim eternal preexistence of God, then you've landed at the same rejection of nothingness as an initial state just with unnecessary extra steps.
Eh. Humans have (confidently and incorrectly) assumed such causal links for millenia. There's thunder, so there must be a thunder god. There's a sun in the sky, so someone must have put it there. There's people, so someone must have build them from clay.
What we could conclude logically: There is something - so something, somehow, once began.
That's it. It's also kind of recursive. It's factual, but there isn't anything meaningful inevitably following from this.
And everything else is an assumption.
You can say "I chose to believe that this somehow was a someone." You could decide to believe that there was a personal entity as a single cause for all that is. Someone who had somewhat of a consciousness, who willingly and deliberately created everything. You could assume that this someone was eternal and all-powerful and therefore later on or even until right now still alive/active. You could speculate about this entity being interested in creating a specific planet with a very specific ecosystem. You could ponder whether this entiry would be interested enough in one species within this ecosystem to watch, influence, and even hold something like a relationship with them.
A bit far fetched, but sure. You wouldn't be the first one to assume all these from a simple "There is a cake".
I mean sure, you can use whatever words to describe whatever you believe, but most people are using a very different definition.
I get it though, in some sense we are the universe's consciousness, made of the same matter which was infinitely compacted a moment before the big bang.
I can't wait until the universe resets so I can be squished next to you again. Or do I mean me? Or we?
abrahamic religions goal isn't a happy and healthy life on earth but rather to ascend to heaven. In fact, suffering on earth is a large component to being able to ascend to heaven as far as they are concerned.
Yes. I see evidence of an intelligent designer in things like DNA and the functions of cells. I find it difficult to believe everything evolved by accident through a series of quadrillions of beneficent mutations.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. — Seneca
What's a mob to a king? What's a king to a god? What's a god to an atheist?
What’s the atheist to the inquisition?
What’s the inquisition to- NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Nonbeliever*
Nobody asked about religion.
Feel free to substitute "the existence of a God" for "religion" then.
Which one?
nah, religion seems like a scam that usually results in unhinged beliefs and abuse.
Not a fan generally speaking.
if you dig into any religions beliefs, it goes into some wild fairy tail stuff that just...doesnt happen.
Not to mention that folks tend to base their morals on religion, and religions have very flawed morals.
the difference between god and myself is that if I could, I would prevent a child from getting bone cancer.
Religion did have good morals in theory. Not in practice.
Also, unrelated to your points, religion didn't evolve. It stayed about the same for thousands of years, despite new science.
Which one is that?
That jesus dude had some pretty liberal thoughts. Buddhism was a nice reaction to the caste system. The method of delivery may not be inherently moral, but it is possible to manipulate a population in a way overall beneficial to society.
He personally, maybe. I didn't know the guy. The religion that grew around him, though ... not so much.
I'm not sure if it's because of his father or he just had terrible editors for his posthumous book release. But some of the stuff in there is quite abhorrent.
We a have so many other books now that contain all those good messages, even a lot more with more relevance to modern life, without all the terrible stuff and non-sense.
It just makes no sense to keep a 2000 old book around for a couple of good messages that are already thaught in many other, more modern stories and context.
i didnt say religion only had bad morals. broken clocks and such.
but christianity in specific has a lot of flawed morals that christians handwave. like Mary being 12 when she gave birth to Jesus, or pretty much everything old testament.
claims of a perfect and just omnipotent god while stuff like that flies is sloppy.
If you need to rely on an external force and fear of hell to have morals, you’re not a good person.
I'm an agnostic theist, I believe in the possibility of god(s) or god-like entities.
There is a quote I resonate with by Marcus Aurelius:
Exactly! I haven't seen any proof of a god(s) but I'm willing to keep an open mind. At the end of the day if I live life trying to do well, I should be good.
That quote resonates a lot with me as well.
Wow, I had no idea that there was a quote out there that aligns so well with my beliefs. I grew up in a semi religious household but was never forced to go to church. My parents encouraged me to go, not only to theirs but even go with friends that were different religions.
After going to various churches through some really vulnerable times I still don't subscribe to any religion, but I also can't bring myself to go full atheist.
Too bad that quote is way too long for a tattoo 🤣
It's a bit wordier (well, most people are wordier than the stoics lol) but Socrates had the right idea too I think:
No.
Imo the more you think about it the more you realize that "god" is just a very human way to cope with feeling lonely or powerless, and life having no ultimate direction or purpose. People imagine a friend or guardian who has a plan and will set things right, and some use this shared fantasy to make others do what they want.
From the things I've seen in my lifetime I can only assume there's no God, and if there is a God then he's not worth worshipping for letting the amount of suffering exist as there is in the world today.
Seconded.
I don't believe in any deities. Although, Greek mythology really would be cool if it was real.
Cool, and also terrifying.
Like The Fonz wielding a chain saw
I asked AI to draw that with interesting results
I mean, it got the jacket sort of right 🤷
I had to ask it to tweak it several times hah
If there is a god, it takes a special sadist to allow the amount of torment present on earth.
So I prefer to believe there's no higher spirit ravelling in the suffering of all creatures rather than there being a malevolent creator watching with glee as we die a slow, painful death.
The researcher observing the lion didn't create the concept of suffering tho
I love what-if scenarios :)
I think you could go one step further with this theory and say that humans are not that important at all. I mean, why would we think we are? Because god told us so? Maybe he just said that to account for some variable and left it at that. Hasn't looked back at what we were up to since.
In some distant corner of the universe is a much nicer planet where everyone is living in harmony and peace. We're just the control group :)
When I was religious (I'm not any more) that was something that never actually troubled me. I believed that god was benevolent but that suffering must be necessary in ways that we humans can't conceive of. Who were we to question the grander plan?
Here we go...
EDIT: Surprisingly not as toxic as I thought...
You must've been thinking of Reddit...
Yeah I thought for sure people would be duking it out in the comments section, but Lemmy seems to come to a (mostly) unanimous agreement here.
Welcome to Lemmy :)
But for real, if you go to the comment section on instagram or something comparable, its really toxic compared to Lemmy. But I'm also a bit worried as mastodon seems to become more toxic over the time, hopefully Lemmy stays the same
Apatheist here. Whether there is or isn't a god, I don't give a shit. Just stop trying to shove your shit down my throat and leave me the fuck alone.
Do you believe in Santa?
Only when If I get expensive gifts.
I remember I actually stopped believing in God at the same time I realised Santa wasn't real.
Same.
I read satan and got so confused by the replies
Yes, becuse in my family, all the older family members make him real for the younger kids. We actively work together to make Christmas a magical time by telling stories and staying up late to put out presents. I know that Santa is not a real person but I believe I can keep his "spirit alive" by giving heartfelt presents and spending quality time with my family.
I personally am atheist but I will admit that many religions have good teachings. I don't believe in the gods from those religions but I can follow the guidelines to living a good life.
Yes, and yes to the OP. It's very similar.
An older family member once asked my siblings and me, as older teenagers, whether we believed in Santa. We scoffed, laughed, and incredulously said of course not.
She responded that she believed in Santa, and she gave this explanation: Santa is a cultural shorthand for generosity. Do you believe in the spirit of giving? Do you want to see smiles on children's faces on Christmas morning? Do you want to make the people you love light up because you had special, almost supernatural, insight into their heart's desire and made it real?
I don't believe a magical man in a red suit gives presents and coal to kids. I similarly don't believe in a white bearded cloudy Jewish giant in the sky.
But I believe that there's something sublime and immaterial in the love we can have for one another, something only partially explained by ecologic survival pressures and biochemistry. I think there is something out there beyond what we can perceive on a daily basis, and for lack of a better lexicon, "spiritual" is as good a term as anyone for the realm of the imperceptible.
So I think there's a God, and I think there's a Santa. I don't understand either, and I think they're neither anything quite like we expect. And God the Creator is certainly an asshole sometimes. But I think there's Someone out there.
That's kinda just equivocation though.
Well that’s the issue always when talking about metaphysical beliefs.
There’s the child that beliefs in literal Santa going down the chimney. And there’s the adult that stopped believing in child stories and sees a rich and valuable culture around those stories anyway.
It’s not equivocal, but grown up in an embracing way.
There’s also the grown up in a rejecting way who is never satisfied with either variant, although for some this is just an intermezzo towards the embracing way.
Santa is a cultural shorthand for consumerism. Going by your reasoning, god is a cultural shorthand for rationalizing one's own wrongdoing, lack of innate morality and misunderstanding of the world.
Not what I was talking about. Fortunately you can believe whatever you want.
sure
You can't disprove God because you can keep changing the definition. If I define God as the culmination of everything in the universe, you can't really disprove that.
If you disagree with me, then I can just keep changing the definition of God!
Surely the reason you can’t disprove God is because you can’t leave the universe. Since it isn’t possible for us to know what is outside of our universe we can’t prove or disprove a god’s existence.
The god argument can't be contradicted because it's not based on logic. People can just make up rules for their gods, and they usually don't care if those conform to reality or logic as we know it.
E.g. I can just say that logically disproving my god is a proof of its godhood, because it defies and is beyond human understanding. That's just not something you can argue about.
Assuming you are sarcastic - I agree wholeheartedly.
Look up The Invisible Dragon anecdote by Carl Sagan (in his Demon Haunted World book), or for more serious people - Falsifiability principle by Karl Popper, If you haven't already.
Do I believe in god? No.
Do I deny the existence of god? No.
I don't have evidence either way
Since science is deductive it's probably impossible to prove the negative there, but I think there's enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you can confidently deny it (unless your god is non-falsifiable, in which case it's not worth discussion).
Same logic applies to unicorn and dragons, to be honest
they might exist, somewhere
No, not at all. I went to a christian high school and that experience removed pretty much any doubts I might have had.
I'm a happy atheist, don't really care about all this religious stuff. I don't mind that others believe, just as long as they don't impose their views on others.
I believe there is an all powerful being made of spaghetti and meatballs floating somewhere out there. May you all be touched by his noodley appendage!
I went through an existential crisis in my 20s because I was 'told' I needed to be religious but never was. I read a lot of theological and philosophical texts and came to a conclusion similar to yours, if there's a 'God', then they're cruel. I oddly get Pantheism more than Monotheism, because at least it justifies that there's 'good' and 'bad' deities but a lot of them are based on interpretations of phenomena that can now be explained by science.
I took much more to philosophy. I know what I believe is right and wrong morally, and science explains (almost) everything. If there's a 'God'-like figure, they can suck my nut sack because I believe they are at best indifferent, at worst, evil.
And of all the bad things, I find it quite disconcerting how many bad things organized religious have and continue to do. As someone raised Catholic, the organization leading it has, to say the least, a troubled history. This happens unopposed by an all-knowing, all-powerful being under the excuse of free will?
Nope. At best, religion is a fairytale created for those who are uncomfortable with ignorance, and at worst, it's a tool to control gullible people.
Do you believe in Santa?
Last year my youngest was in kindergarten around the time of St. Patrick's Day here in the U.S. At some point they went out to recess and came back in to find little chocolate coins wrapped in gold foil on their desks. I picked him up after school and as we were driving away I asked how school was. He told me that he thinks leprechauns might be real. I asked what made him think they might be and he gave me the "we left class and when we came back there was chocolate on our desks" answer. I asked him if something else could have happened, like a teacher leaving them, and he said no, because the door is locked when they leave. I told him "maybe it was a rainbow unicorn who left the chocolate." His response was very dismissive. He said "no Dad, that's impossible because rainbow unicorns don't exist." He's a sharp kid but he's not quite at the logic stage. :)
Kids brains are funny. I used my superior child logical skills to proof to my parents why santa is not real, I was so proud... And a few years later I had an absolute psychological meltdown crisis after realizing that the Easter bunny isn't real 🥲
I mean, who else is bringing me presents on Christmas?
The tooth fairy?
Santa gets Christmas off and the tooth fairy has to pick up the shift.
No, and I have peace in my life because I do not have that abusive relationship.
Which one?
No.
No. There is no God and if there was one, most of the gore crimes in the pasage of history should have been stopped like human trafficking, slavery, child abuse and countless murders. If there is one and he is simply watching, he should not be worshipped.
No.
No. And I dont believe in anything supernatural.
I have a more abstract view on it. God is Universe. A world at large with only the will to exist. I just don't use the word God because of the implications.
That kinda sounds like pantheism.
Kinda similar thinking, but if there's a creator, I think they intended Earth (or the universe) as a simulation or like an ant farm. No judging, just for entertainment. They probably love the stupid shit we do as humanity.
Which?
There have been over 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects worshipped by humanity since we started writing our history, and likely countless more that have been lost to time. The majority of these worshipped deities are no longer believed in, and the fact we as a species have been unable to move beyond the fairytales of omnipotent gods told during the bronze age will never cease to amaze me.
Religion in all its various current forms is a tool of manipulation used against the masses to keep them complacent and scared. That being said, even though I tend to lean towards an atheististic view, I will concede that the possibility exists of a higher life form we may consider as a god. If such a life form does exist, it would be so far beyond our ability to comprehend that any claim to know what it expects of us is pure human foolishness or intended maliciously to control the ignorant.
I live my life by the simple principle that if a god exists and is a just god then I'll be judged by my actions in this life, whether I caused harm to others or lived well doing what I'm able to make the world better, and not on whether or not I believed in and worshipped them. If a god exists that would punish me for all eternity for not worshipping them, then they are not a just god, and as such would be unworthy of such devotion. Bottomline is we will never know as long as we live, and with as short as our lives are, why waste them worrying about what we can never know. Just live your life well, be kind to others, and be the best you that you can be.
Edit: fixed a typo
Yep. In all of them, just to be sure in case...
Are you Beni??
It’s better to be at the right hand of the devil than in his path.
Or similar, it’s been a while!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/4pZD1Ce8Mcs?si=3rkz1DUpT08GV72B
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Nope, if I’m wrong and there is a god I plan to kick their dick instead out for all the anguish and suffering that could have been avoided. god cannot be both omnipotent and all loving. Only one or the other.
Also, in the loosely remembered words of Ricky Gervais, “if all recorded history of religion, and of science were suddenly erased from the earth; in a thousand years you’d have all the science back exactly the same, but the religions would be totally different.” Which I find very compelling.
In regards to that quote, there is at least one exception though.
The Naassenes died out in the 4th-5th centuries CE and their two written works were lost until one was recovered in 1945 and they remain largely unknown by lay audiences.
And yet a number of their beliefs are quite alive and well today with no direct influence on that modern resurgence, such as the idea that we are in a non-physical recreation of an earlier world where life occurred spontaneously, that the creator of that recreation was itself brought forth by an original humanity, and that the proof for this lies in the study of motion and rest - particularly around the existence of indivisible parts of matter.
None of that was scientifically indicated in antiquity.
And yet today we see many of those ideas among theology/philosophy inspired by modern science and technology.
The idea that we are in a recreated non-physical simulation of an earlier evolved physical world.
The idea that AI, brought forth by an original humanity, could be running such a simulation.
And many proponents of that theory look to physics (the subject which studies motion and rest) for potential evidence, with many incorporating the now scientifically proven evidence of quantum mechanics (indivisible parts of matter) to support that theory.
So the quote is factually incorrect. There was a set of religious beliefs that was effectively eradicated from public consciousness for nearly two millennia yet has ended up resurging again independent of the original set of beliefs.
(And frankly given developments in just the past 5 years, this rare exception to that quote probably should get a closer look then it has to date.)
Interesting. Can you provide some documentation on the Naassenes and their belief that we are in a 'non-physical recreation of an earlier world'? I did some brief research just now but couldn't locate this.
The Naassenes are documented in Hippolytus's Refutations volume 5, and one of their primary religious texts was the Gospel of Thomas.
Before digging into those texts themselves, it's also important to know the philosophical context in which they arise, specifically the debate between Epicurean material naturalism and Plato's theory of forms vs images.
The TLDR on the background is that the Epicureans rejected intelligent design and claimed life evolved through natural processes, and Plato claimed there was a spiritual perfect form with a lesser physical incarnation (and then there could be images of physical things like an artist illustrating a physical bed that was modeled from the spiritual form of a bed in Republic book X).
You see this topic discussed early on in Christian circles in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which touched on certain ideas later found among the Naassenes like the dual Adams:
So starting with the Gospel of Thomas, you have:
Later on, in describing its creator figure, it expounds:
There's an additional indicator in Thomas is here:
The challenge with discerning the earlier ideas of the Naassenes in Pseudo-Hippolytus is twofold - one, it is written by the opposition, and two, this is after Gnostic circles were heavily influenced by Neoplatonism which flipped the script back from "physical first then spiritual" (as Paul cited) to Plato's spiritual first then physical (which belies the earlier use of images in Thomas as Plato's images only followed physical incarnation and it was form that preceded the physical - a term absent in Thomas).
Yet still you have indications breaking through in Refutations for the Naassenes:
Looked at through the lens of canonical Christianity, these ideas say one thing, but through the lens of Thomas (the group in question is the only one explicitly said to have been following it) the interpretation is wildly different.
In Thomas, the cosmos is already a dead body (like Leucretius's claims the cosmos was like a body that would one day die). The rest for the dead and the world to come has already happened but we don't realize it. The images around us are its creator's light, a creator that was eventually established in light and took on earlier images. Adam (which can be translated as humanity) came from great wealth but is now dead, and we are allegedly the children of its eventual creator of light (which in Pseudo-Hippolytus is clearly described as having been brought forth by an original Primal Man/humanity).
Also important is that contrary to the canonical interpretation of being born again, in Thomas being born again is literally being born as babes, with "a hand in place of a hand" and "an image in place of an image."
The key component here is the foundation of Epicurean naturalism. That's very present in Thomas, which entertained naturalism as the origin of the soul (saying 29) but lamented and rejected the Epicurean claims of the soul's dependence on the body (saying 87), appealing to an eventual demiurge in line with Plato's ideas as recreating the images of what came before in its light.
By the 4th century when Pseudo-Hippolytus is recording the beliefs, Epicureanism has fallen from favor in the rise of Neoplatonism which muddies the waters a fair bit, and yet you still have repeated claims of its audience actually being spiritual as well as the quite radical idea that its creator was brought forth by an earlier 'man.'
An important context for why these beliefs might have been deemed necessary can be seen in Against Heresies book 2 chapter 14 discussing 'Gnostic' beliefs in the 2nd century in general:
If there are limits on divine powers such that what is mortal cannot be immortal, then immortality can only be achieved by being born immortal. Hence the development of beliefs of a second birth from mortal form to immortal. Which in Thomas differs from canonical tradition in that it is not a symbolic ritual but literal birth as a babe, much as its Eucharist is not of consuming a physical body but in consuming the words left behind (saying 108).
If you are interested in this topic, I can't recommend enough reading through De Rerum Natura first. The Naassenes explicitly describe the origin of the world as owed to indivisible points called seeds, language that is uniquely from Leucretius who writing in Latin used 'seed' in place of the Greek atomos. To say nothing for the close parallels between Thomas and the work regarding cosmos as dead bodies or referring to seed falling by the wayside of the path (in Leucretius describing failed biological reproduction and in Thomas describing what survived to reproduce as what multiples following a saying about how the human being is like a big fish selected from smaller ones).
That is wild! How dare you bring awkward facts into a faith-orientated discussion...
What an absolutely crazy thing
I think this case is far too micro in scale when the question looks at the concept of religion and science as a whole. Of course you’ll have similar ideas across centuries that trend up and down like everything else does. If humanity just went back to have no idea what religion or science is, when they rebuilt their understanding of the world, science would be entirely the same. All of science. Not a handful of theories. The whole thing. People will make new gods though. The planet is completely different now. The reasons religion was even thought about will no longer be the same. The quote really pushes the stance that religion as a concept and whole is made up, and science is not.
If Ricky Gervais ends up in mastodon I’d want to hear their reasoning.
There's no reason to believe that the second round of science would still arrive at earlier theories such as the pudding model of the atom.
That was very much a part of science. But it isn't any longer as a result of experimental evidence.
So your rebuttal glosses over the many failed scientific theories but then uses the failed religious ideas to invalidate any religious ideas.
When in truth, both science and religion have historically attempted to explain the unexplained. The methodology of science is much better, but they have both had many examples of dumb ideas in retrospect.
The reason why the Naassenes had such interesting ideas was that they ended up having incorporated the ideas of Leucretius, who in 50 BCE had written the only extant work from antiquity to describe survival of the fittest in detail.
At the time, there was no experimental evidence to support or falsify such theories. But at the time a religious group working on extrapolating theories built on top of naturalism ended up landing on very similar ideas to what we currently come up with having experimentally landed on evolutionary theory and having turned Plato's eventual creator of worlds (another philosophical influence on the Naassenes) from theory to practice.
So while science is more likely to be right more often as a result of far better methodology, the problem with the quote is that it's a "heuristic that almost always works" and fails to consider the edge cases when religious thought had attached itself to natural explanations which later turned out to be correct.
Effectively, any ideas predicated on concepts which will eventually be experimentally validated should be expected to arise again even after erasing earlier theorizing, as it's the replicability of experimental results that drives that reproduction. And any ideas, whether a part of science or outside of it, which are predicated on eventually falsified ideas have no guarantee of reproduction.
The mistake the quote embodies is the assumption that it's impossible for theological ideas to have attached themselves to experimentally reproducible concepts. But that has happened before, and it meant that the extrapolated theological concepts were also reproduced.
And that's to say nothing for the many reproduced beliefs on other reproducible foundations such as dying and rising gods or katabasis that occurred in completely separate communities. In those cases it was a result of watching the stars and observing the orbit of Venus dropping down below the ground to arise again days later. So you had a central American God navigating the underworld and resurrecting the dead associated with Venus independent and parallel to Ianna in the Mediterranean navigating the underworld and associated with Venus. Or the common beliefs about the immortality of snakes because of their shedding.
The quote is the kind of thing that seems clever but is factually incorrect and betrays the one offering it up as uninformed of what they are talking about despite their self-assuredness in borrowed pithiness.
The quote is not mistaken. It simply states that religion is made up by humans, and science is not. That’s all I think it tries to say and anyone with an understanding of science can see that too. An exception or two where religion and science lined up doesn’t change that religion is divisive and a human creation.
No
No. And while I will treat those who do with the same level of dignity and respect I grant to everyone, I secretly do think less of them for it (especially when I see them perpetuating the indoctrination with their children).
Nope. Can't understand the reasoning behind "some dude has always existed, you can't see him though or touch him or anything, but he created everything! Also only we few know about this and only recently! All the other beliefs are wrong." Where would a giant fairy come from? No idea.
Spent a good while searching for evidence as a doubting kid. Didn't find anything. I realized the absurdity later on of believing in ghosts and psychics and magic when one of the defining qualities is how they can't be recorded or even reproduced scientifically.
God loves you, watches you, judges you and can do anything, but he won't move a leaf on the floor to tell a crying bullied kid to hold on to hope, that he exists. God is such a human-centric thing anyway. Humans are specks of nothingness, a million years in a tiny planet in a sea of infinite time and space. But yeah some dude created us specifically and we look like him!
I just realized I'm on the God account. 🙏😐 (God wants people to doubt him so he can send them to hell without feeling bad about it?!?!)
No
I've been raised as a Christian, but always found it weird that there was zero proof and all based on a book. It seems like the longest running book club ever. I'm still going to church regularly, mainly because I enjoy the company and the church we're going to promotes a good lifestyle: Take care of each other, respect other's people's choices, and be kind.
I really despise the news where people are banning e.g. aborting / LGBTQ /queer in the name of Christianity. Just respect what other people do!
And I think there are things we can't explain. I recently read "After" written by a doctor who has spent decades to research NDE's and there are many things he can't explain, and scientists still don't know what exactly the conscience is.
you don't need proof when you have ✨faith✨
Nope. Or to be more specific, I have not been convinced by any of the claims of a god that have been presented to me.
Of course not, that's silly.
Nope. Never have that I remember.
I did go to Catholic school though
How could people have faith in a non-interfering God who allows terrible events, even to young children? If such a God exists but doesn't intervene, then there's no reason to worship it, as its presence holds no significance for humanity. Moreover, it's likely that if this God is real and unaware of our existence, it's because we're inconsequential. This becomes even more plausible if numerous planets similar to Earth with their own life forms exist.
No
I was almost 14 years old when I lost my faith. I grew up in severe poverty, was severely depressed due to bullying and my weight, and I am LGBT. I found a website listing the inconsistencies in the Bible. I attempted to show my grandmother, who proceeded to laugh in my face. So I kept reading, then I came to a conclusion on my own.
The moment it finally "clicked" it honestly felt like a weight off my shoulders. Like I'd finally was free. My lack of faith hasn't waivered since then.
I don't know, and no one has any good arguments.
A god is not required to explain anything in the universe, so I just assume a god does not exist.
In the Cristian sense of god, god has no direct effect on the world, making the question meaningless.
It would be the same as believing there is an teapot in orbit between Uranus and Neptune, too small and dark to see with any telescope. I could say it exists, and no one would be able to disprove me, but that doesn't make it real.
Strangely enough, if instead of a teapot (which at least would be possible, if hugly impractical to find) you use an entity that is invisible, intangible, does not do anything else that could allow it to be detected (most omni-gods), then billions believe it.
All people are atheists towards most of the "gods" humans came up with. I just go a step further and refuse to believe in one more.
No. There hasn't been any evidence to convince me of the existence of such an entity.
Who cares?
If God exists in the Judeo Christian sense, they seemingly fucked off and stopped caring a while back and creation hit perpetual motion status a while back for better or worse
If I was created in their image they totally get why I'm skeptical given the rest of their fan club and also gestures around
If you want to believe in that stuff: do you. I legit hope you get something positive or if it, BUT... Just like crossfit, veganism or astrology; I can hang in a casual conversation, but don't recruit me. I did my research. Not for me, thank you.
So, Egyptian god of the Apocalypse. I got two of them and agree completely. Very sleepy but still demanding.
Fuck no.
Oh shush.
Nope.
… and would you give the same answer if asked at a checkpoint in Afghanistan?
Oh that's a scary ass scenario but a point that needed to be made.
Yes. (I'm a protestant Christian.)
Hello fellow Protestant Christian! 😀
Heyo, same here
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of any god or divine figure, nor in ghosts, spirits, etc.
Absolutely not
I dont believe in anything like gods, ghosts, magic etc
Yes.
Do you really believe in God or someone forced you to believe in God?
What made you think that this concept is real?
No. I have no use for that hypothesis.
I have not since I was 14. I don't completely dismiss the possibility of one but I think it is incredibly unlikely.
But if you believe in one, have at it. As long as you are not forcing me or others to be involved, I don't care.
It doesn't matter what I believe; what matters is that God believes in itself. Gotta keep that spirit up!
I believe in the possibility of a creator, be it a single omniscient/omnipresent/omnipowerful/etc being or some natural process we do not understand.
But do I have enough evidence to swear fealty to any particular thing that might occupy this role? Fuck no.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the answer is not important but how we respond to the answer (or lack of an answer) is what matters most. Different believers of the same god(s) and religion can either feed and clothe the less fortunate or genocide nations.
If there is one or more god(s) out there and their fundamental core value is love, I would think they would not care if we get the answer right or even care about acknowledgement with prayer and rituals, but they would be more interested in how we treat each other and the world that we live in by keeping love as a core value in our lives.
Their fundamental core value doesn't have to be love. That's just one kind of interpretation of some religions. There are more options.
Absolutely. That section is a response to the monotheistic interpretation of god and the idea of hell. The Greco-Roman gods, for example, would be an entirely different story where power is the core value.
If that was true, how could they let the status quo persist?
This is an excellent question that I have not been able to reconcile myself
No.
Also this isn't an open-ended question.
I can't imagine a world with god in it.
Nope
No. I can't prove he doesn't exist but I've seen no proof he does, and it seems extremely unlikely.
Which of the 1’000 or so proposed ones are you talking about? (The answer is no for all of them for the same reason: A complete lack of evidence)
I usually understand God as meaning "Nature". Some of my religious friends also throw in there the notions of "events", " happenstance", "chance", etc. basically a mishmash of everything we cannot explain either because of its complexity, or because we don't have fitting models. On days I feel low, I like to think of the universe as having a purpose, a presence, and talk to it as if my voice reached the furthest stars, penetrated the densest nebulæ. It's obvious anthropomorphism, but it makes me feel a bit better. I can only suppose it is the same for religious people.
Yes
No. The universe just is a thing that exists.
I don’t believe in God, although it’s very nice to have somebody to pray to when you are in a bad situation with no control. Like there is still a way for things to go right because even if you don’t have control, somebody has.
I don't, and I find it hard to understand how people truly believe it. I guess it's a search for meaning. I don't get why people feel they need a make believe creator to set their moral compass. Having said that, as long as people don't push their beliefs on others my general philosophy is live and let live.
I have a more complicated answer these days than I used to... the short answer is "no," but the caveats make it longer.
I don't believe in a god in the sense of an all knowing human type being that has thoughts and wishes and passes down commandments -- basically, not the religious kind of God.
At the same time, I appreciate a lot of the Jewish traditions I grew up with, and Judaism has a lot more lassitude around what "God" means to you. To me, it's Baruch Spinoza's conception of God ... basically, just "the universe," of which each person is an integral part.
So in a "college freshman on acid feeling one with the universe," kind of way, sure I believe in God. In a, "He got upset I masturbated way," then no, not at all.
Yes
No.
No
Not in a religious way.
All evidence points to religion being about control of the poor. For example, the Christian old testament was originally written in a language the poor could not read, and translating it was illegal. And almost all have a group at the top profiting off the many that have much less.
I was a gnostic atheist but became agnostic atheist. I am very much against organised religions, but I believe anyone should be able to believe in anything they want. At the conditions that they do not try to shove it down the throat of others or hurt anyone with their beliefs.
On God, the thing that made me change my mind is that you cannot clearly define what God is (the definition varies from person to person), so you can't be certain that it does or doesn't exist. Is God a bearded dude in the sky? Nature ? The Universe ?
As far as I'm concerned, if God exists, it would be very pretentious to think that it gives a crap about us, and even then, it would probably not be benevolent. Especially when you consider the amount of suffering happening on earth everyday.
That only works assuming they will never have children, but believers tend to procreate prolifically.
No
If by "God" you mean an intelligence and power that created everything, including us, no I do not. I don't think any intelligence or wisdom is enough to create this thing called universe or these bunch of universes. To me "intelligence" is a tool developed by some live beings in order to succeed and prosper in the world, not a tool to create and maintain universes.
Nope, Im in my 30s and lost my belief in God during college.
No. I have no need of that hypothesis.
No.
Yes*
Nope, not at all, nor in anything supernatural. They tried to indoctrinate me into catholicism, but I realized at age 8 or 9 that it was all a crock of shit.
No and I'm glad I don't, seeing all the ignorance of the world caused by religion. But I still respect people's beliefs (to a degree) like I do with my best friend. He's like a brother to me and he's devout. As long as people don't shove their beliefs into me or talk religious nonsense to me, I'm chill.
No
You'll have to be more precise on the definition of God. There are quite a lot of them.
The existence of an abstract concept is provable by thinking of it. If there exists an idea that you call God, then a God exists. However, that proves nothing about its properties beyond its mere existence as an idea, including whether it pertains to any real thing. Likewise, all attributes you ascribe to that idea become part of the idea, but do not automatically prove anything about reality.
Thus, the question whether there is an idea called God is trivially answered by asking it at all, but has little bearing on anything at all.
What makes ideas useful is that they group properties, and what makes them real is that there exists an actual thing having all those properties.
Thus, the question whether a real thing exists depends on the properties of that thing, so let's tackle one:
Do I believe that there can be an omnipotent entity? No. The typical argument here is "Can God create a rock so heavy, They cannot lift it anymore?" Either answer contradicts the premise of omnipotence, unless that entity can create logical contradictions, in which case all argument and reasoning is moot anyway.
In particular, do I believe that some variation of the Abrahamic God exists? No, or at least none of those I'm aware of. That doesn't mean I'm not open to being shown otherwise.
However, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving God runs decidedly counter to the existence of suffering, even if we ignore (or exclude) the contradiction about omnipotence.
It is impossible to know whether there is a higher power. I believe that the existence of the universe fundamentally violates causality to begin with, since everything must have a beginning. Thus anything is on the table.
All human conceptions of religion and spirituality are almost certainly wrong though.
No
Yes, but almost certainly not the same one you're thinking of.
No
I would say I lean towards not believing, but I am open to other ideas. And if god did exist it really wouldn't change anything for me. I would just live as I normaly do
God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
-Joseph Campbell
Him who? Campbell?
Well he’s saying the concept god is a metaphor. Not a literal “Him”. But yes, better to think of all religions as metaphor and not take it literally.
I believe in a power above all else which gave rise to the universe. You could technically call it "God," but I prefer to think of it just as a primordial force of nature, like gravity and such, but far more ancient.
Basically I believe that in the beginning, there was nothing, and that includes the rule that something can't come from nothing. That didn't exist either, so the void just kinda imploded on itself and now stuff exists.
With no rules or restrictions on what could happen yet, literally anything could happen. In a sense, that would make the void omnipotent, but also probably mindless. In my eyes, less like a god, more like the most powerful force of nature to ever exist. Or I guess not exist.
Don't know, don't care.
It's worth noting I do consider belief in the simulation theory a form of theism.
I’ve got hypotheses about how there could be a god, but there’s not really any evidence or any reason I’ve seen to think there is one. While it’s not something that can be ruled out 100%, it seems stupid at this point to believe he/she/it even exists, much less to worship it, not with the state of the world today.
a God? Maybe. There are too many technical coincidences in life and physics for me to believe all of it was random chance.
the God? Nah. I was raised non-denominational Christian but I don't even go as far as to claim that anymore.
Just factor in the size and age of the universe. With enough chances, everything that can happen eventually will happen.
But provided that the universe is infinite! Only in this case, the postulate is really true.
It can also be true in a finite universe. It just has to be big enough for the event with the smallest probability to happen once.
No, I haven’t had an imaginary friend since I was four.
No.
It depends on the definition of God. I believe there might be some being that "made" or "caused" the universe but I dont think they are pure evil or good. I also believe all religions are BS and were invented by humans, although some religions might have been invented under good intentions.
no
We can't know. And that's fine.
Whatever started the physical process that created us is pretty fucking crazy. I bet it's a simulation.
So many people in this thread were traumatized from church lol. God isn't inherently a bad or stupid idea... just depends on how you define God.
Nope, I don't need to believe in make believe.
No, and I never really did, even when I went to church as a kid. Then, when I was told not to come back to Sunday School because I asked too many questions, it cemented my atheism.
Yes I do, but I prefer to not be a part of a cult of fanatics (so-called "religion) who only pretend to live their life by some ancient book. Don't get me wrong, the religious books, such as the Bible and Quran do contain a lot of knowledge and some pieces should be followed, but going to church on Sunday just to show everyone how "good of a Christian" I am is unbelievably dumb.
I see God as an entity that helps me, and I do believe in the afterlife. It just seems so bizzare to me, that I should follow some rules that people made, saying that God actually did... The church is a company like any other and I'm not going to support it, ever.
I believe in some form if God, but the entity is beyond my comprehension. I don't have a religion though and don't worship anything.
In any specific god? no. What I believe is that we don't know and will never know anything beyond our own existence. We don't know what we are, in the grand scheme of things (or if there's a grand scheme at all). We don't even know if we actually exist.
I just live my life to the best of my abilities and shrug off all that "beyond my existence" stuff as pointless. If I tried to think about it, I don't believe I would ever come anywhere close to a real answer anyway.
No, but I wish God was real.
Humans are not evolved enough past our selfishness. If we all lived believing that our actions are being judged by a benevolent father figure, we'd have less people screwing each other over.
Most of humanity legitmatly believed in some kind of god for most of history. It didn't stop people from screwing each other over.
True.
But please, don't make it the jealous, plague invoking version that needs a constant stream of souls sacrificed, from the old testament.
I guess that's inevitable. If you think that there is a maker, then you'd have to also explain things like natural disasters. Which leads to thinking that God is mad at us.
This is not considering the corruption of the people in charge.
Well, I understand most religions as populous weapon systems to use as a tool for moral manipulation.
USA loves this shit but even uses these tactics outside of the confines of religion, it's why (some) gun owners feel the need for more fire arms to use agenst thier government, they are convinced it will help them fight back! When in reality the USA government won't use fire arms to stop you lol.
And if you just spend some time learning about geology and how solar systems are made, you will quickly find that ya all of these things work just fine independently on their own and don't need and guidence, most humans will say "hWo dO yoO tHinK maDe tHoSe eLemEnTs???"
Imo that answer might be beyond the short time frame humans will exist.
I believe in Claude.
It's okay, despite what Christianity teaches, you can believe in multiple gods. Those Gods can be equally unfathomable; and impossibly foreign.
Not really. I'm not ready to fully discount whatever the afterlife is but as for the way the entity is covered in Abrahamic religions - no.
Yes, even if not really in an established denomination (despite going to church).
I used to be a pretty devout catholic but went through the whole crisis of faith. So these days, no.
I still wonder a lot about before the big bang, or wherever the actual "start" of everything was and what sparked it or made the energy exist in the first place, but I don't want to just hand wave it and say God because we don't have an explanation. But its definitly something I ponder
From what I understand, time began at the Big bang, so the concept of "before time began" doesn't really make logical sense in the same way that one cannot go north of the North Pole.
It's mind-bending to think about for sure.
I get that, but then there's the energy that created it, who knows where it came from. even if we say the result of a previous crunch or 2 strings colliding, whatever, there was something before. its difficult to think abouy
No, and as far as I can remember I never have.
I should add that my parents consciously decided not to make me grow up with adult santa claus as part of my life. The idea was that once I'm old enough to decide (somewher 14-18) I can decide for myself. They haggled out a deal with my school where I was free to sit in with varying religious education classes to compare. Eventually having a chat, I was by then big time disillusioned by how little sense everything made, and while at the time I could not understand how my friends could take this nonsense as anything even remotely true, I also knew I could not takei t serious.
So, here I am. Still no adult easter bunnies for me. 😅 I mean, I get why some people find it a useful thing to cling on to in times of desperation, but then I would also say that that is no different than the grifts Theranos or homeopathy or so were/are running. You just milk money out of people's grief, desperation and loneliness. Because of how low the barrier of entry is to most of our religions (after all, our parents make us start with it by default 😢), the buy-in is so low that most people never actively notice this part. Maybe I had it easy, since I would have had to climb that barrier first.
Do I believe in any higher power in general? Well, no. A bit of a shame, I know. But I doubt the Twelve from Final Fantasy are all that real; cool as it would be to meet Nald'Thal or Menphina because of their kickass fight-themes in FFXIV.
Absolutely not. Though the best question would be: Which one? There's hundreds, if not thousands in history.
Only if he is a DJ!
No.
God? What a preposterous idea! I believe in aliens, Lister!
If you mean the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh, no. If you mean any sort of higher power, I don't know for sure.
Not at all, nor anything supernatural. I was raised evangelical and it really soured me on religion period, and I'm still trying to unlearn many of the harmful teachings. Luckily my SO was of the same mind so I'm eternally grateful for it; that kind of thing can destroy a relationship.
I don't think so in the cure of god as a single being.
I think there's possibly some phenomenon maybe linked to quantum entanglement where everything in the universe is more linked than we realise and there's some sort of awareness in that.
The pagan belief of nature as a God is probably the closest to something I'd agree with rather than modern depictions of god.
I absolutely do not.
One single god God, perhaps what makes a god a god? I do believe we form a network or web of connected consciousness. Who's contained within this web and how interactions work on it is where it gets interesting.
Like a federated god?
I think what "god" does mean for me, you and others are different. Also same goes for "believe" and "you". I believe, these kinds of topics are way out of our minds' league and even we could comprehend and discuss those things(god, reality, logic etc.) we still would be using wrong tools like language and our current logic system. So both the tools we use, and our intelligence is not enough to answer this question.
But still, if you want a yes or no answer; I would say no without hesitation.
I believe that God is man's creation, but that it has escaped control by man and morphed into a phenomenon that has an existence and an impact on the world regardless of the literal truth of any one religion. An inversion of the Christian creation story, where God created man and then man got out of pocket. The realm of belief where gods could potentially exist is a place where empirical truth is sort of irrelevant, and what is useful holds more sway.
There's a scene in the Illuminatus trilogy that pretty well summarizes my beliefs regarding the supernatural. Spoilers ahoy, you've been warned. It's a rather ridiculous scene, the presumed protagonists Simon Moon and Hagbard Celine have just summoned the goddess Eris to help them do battle with a lake full of Nazi zombies. She emerges as a 50 foot tall bucket of whoop ass and just starts cleaning house. Simon looks at Hagbard and says something like "I could swear you told me that she was just a metaphor for the creative force in all of us" and Hagbard replies "That's what she is when that's what we need her to be. Today we need her to be a Nazi-punting giant."
I did once, for about nine months when I was 18.
Then an exorcism happened, I became doubtful and finally stopped believing.
Unless the question specifies which God it is referring to ( Ancient Greek gods like Zeus or Poseidon, Roman Gods like Apollo or Mars, Judeo-Christian God, Hindu Gods etc - or referring to the concept of a "Creator" in general ) - it can not be answered.
Assuming it refers to a "Creator" - then no, I do not see any evidence supporting that Creator.
God is supposed to be All Powerful AND All Good. The current fucked up state of the Humankind clearly suggests that he (or it) is not both of those at the same time.
The question is asking if you believe in any god
Technically the only requirement is creating the world
Then every proponent of simulation theory is a theist.
I used to think that was a valid argument against the existence of a creator, but the Futurama episode Godfellas actually changed my mind. If an omnipotent benevolent deity does things right, people shouldn't be able to tell they've done anything at all. Plus people have free will, and it would be kind of a dick move to give people free will and then invalidate it by being all interventionist in the world.
That being said, I wouldn't describe myself as a theist. More of an agnostic. I just think it's a bit silly to act as though there is 100% certainty for or against the existence of a God.
So what's the argument for keeping cancer and other horrible diseases for babies around? An omnipotent benevolent god could have easily gotten rid of them before we figured out modern medicine, so nobody would have known. Yet, here they are.
That's a very narrow-minded way of thinking about the idea of a higher power... If something can be explained by science, it doesn't need an explanation based on anything else. But there are plenty of questions that science can't answer, not because it's not equipped to answer them, but because they ask things which cannot be known for certain; philosophical questions about reality and the meaning we assign to it. Like what is the value of a life? And again, that's not to say that I believe in a higher power; I just think it's impossible to be certain one way or the other.
Those are questions of metaphysics, and you're right they can't be answered by science. But you have to ask yourself, if they can't be answered by science, that is they can't be measured or falsified, then what meaning do they really have? If you think of an unknowable, non-interventional god, their existence is the same to us as not existing, so it has no meaning. Same with any meanings of life, or questions about whether we live in a simulation perhaps, anything you can't measure is just a story essentially, until you can measure it.
A lack of perfection, the existence of tragedy, and the hope of a better world, allow humanity to grow.
If there is nothing bad, there is no reason to struggle, to become better, to improve.
If there is nothing good, there is no reason not to despair, to cling to hope, to improve.
Obviously this is purely philosophical, but as that very Futurama episode states (and many other attempts to tackle the problem of evil), “you have to use a light touch.”
Other excellent examples of this notion are found in the ending of The Wheel of Time, wherein a world without evil and a world without good are explored. Another fine example is in the second era of the Mistborn books, where a deity discusses finding that balance.
I get that and didn't say there should be no cancer at all. There should be challanges to life.
But giving a baby a terminal disease ... that's just spawn-camping.
There's zero evidence God is real. Might as well say "we can't say with 100% certainty Harry Potter isn't real. In the story the wizards all hide from muggles."
Sure. And it’s totally fair to take that and extrapolate that religion and spirituality are nonsense.
Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion though, and many individuals will have highly personal reasons for finding or rejecting religion and spirituality. This is an area where we ought to embrace diversity of thought so long as it does not harm others, as unfortunately so much has on this topic.
No. I usually call myself an agnostic atheist and follow it up with this thought: say humanity some day, somehow sends a man or a robot to explore a black hole and at the very bottom of that black hole there is an old door with a doorbell. We ring the doorbell and soon after an old man opens the door and says: "oh, there you are. I'm God, come on in". I think it would be kind of arrogant to just dismiss him immediately and say "no you're not! God doesn't exist!" That's why I'm not just a hardcore atheist.
No, but I don't want to rule it out completely. I there is, it's probably nothing like anyone has every thought about. There's a lot about the universe we don't know. I think it's a bit foolish to claim for certain things when we know so little about the universe. One day, it might be possible to measure the soul with scientific equipment, and future people may look back on us and think, "Wow, they actually believed they were only organic, not even realizing they have a quantum soul," the same way we look back at people who thought the earth was the center of the universe.
The world is a complicated place, and what we say now may look foolish or ahead of its time 100 years from now.
I believe we don't want to face the adversity of judging the world in front of us so we ponder "god/no god" to not think about the fact that insurance literally began as a scam or that hospitals can legally extort you for all your worth and it isn't a fair fight or that mental healthcare is least attainable to those who need it most.
No. There isn't a decisive being weighing our souls. We weigh our own conscience, or we don't. Shit is unfair, but you do your best. That way when you feel like shit you know you're really trying. You can role play a big source of approval if you want, just don't be a predator about it.
I've affirmed before that I do. But that was a long time ago, and I maintain the right to change my mind.
The most honest answer to the question is 'I don't really think about it.'
Yep!
Believing in the existence of God and believing God is a being that deserves our worship are 2 different things.
Also depends on which god and which denomination. If there are gods, it's more likely than not that there are more than one. In Christianity, God makes a big deal of "not worshipping other gods before me" so I'm just saying. What's considered a God anyway? Do extraterrestrial intelligent life with better technology than us count?
Yes. (lds)
Yes, and I have peace in my life because I have this relationship.
No. But I am open to the possibility that we are all fractions of a superbeing that is the sum of the universe.
Kinda like the philosophy of Alan Watts? Or like the short story of The egg?
I don't know Watts but The Egg is a nice story. It's quite comforting with the idea that despite everything that goes wrong in the world, it's all part of the learning process of the universe-organism. It's not a God, it can not rule, it simply is and we and literally everything else are part of it. All we can do is to be and try to get by best we can and learn from our experiences to be better.
If I'd have to put faith in something, that would probably be my pick.
No
No
That's a complicated question it depends on what do you mean by god?
Nope. And I won't ask you which one, cuz still nope.
I guess you could say I believe in God, it's religion I don't put much stock in.
When I picture God I don't imagine a white bearded old guy living in the clouds with a skin color remarkably similar to mine. It's human folly to put a face on it. Rather God to me is an entity much bigger than myself to which I have duty to have a constructive impact on the world.
"Omnism" is the closest definition to what I'm trying to define. Debates will never end, but I'm happy with my own path
Nope.
Yeah sorta. She's torturing me because she's just a hottie bad bitch like that 🥵
I used to as my parent taught me that but now as a grown up , I dont believe in god. I mean I am not sure if god exists so I dont believe in god. Just like ghosts, aliens etc.
I believe in me. You are all being perceived by me. And anything I cannot perceive is not in the realm of existence.
No. Raised in the faith but never truly believed.
Yup I sure do
Yes, without a doubt. Been an Ordained Minister since 1987.
God? No... Gods? Yea sure, i believe in nature, i believe in the balance of everything, and for a lack of giving my faith a focus, i have turned to the norse gods multiple times.
They arent omnipotent, they arent all knowing, but they are beings bumbling around the universe like us, doing dumb ass shit... like all of us... and you can ask for favors, but dont expect to get it granted, because if you arent willing to make a sacrafice, and do the groundwork, why on earth would they help you?
I try to separate “believing” things — ie, concluding that I will accept something as true (helpful) — from “believing in” things, which edges more into hoping and convincing myself (problematic).
Yeah. Even if it intellectually makes no sense, I still do. I never discuss it and would never attempt to convert someone or anything, I really have better things to do. But despite the fact it isn't logical I still always do.
Of a sort.
I strongly believe that the universe we are in is one created and run by an intelligent 3rd party.
But unlike 99.9% of the people who share that belief, I happen to also believe that this 3rd party was itself created from evolutionary processes in a world that was not created.
It's a belief that seems to go back at least to the 3rd century CE, but centers around the notion that a chaotic universe where life evolved without design (an idea at least as old as Leucretius in 50 BCE) would eventually create life sophisticated enough to be able to create worlds itself, and that we are in the re-creation of such a universe at an earlier point in time.
One of the wildest aspects of that belief in antiquity was its focus on the notions of Greek atomism and matter being made up of indivisible parts as an indicator of its claim of being in a copy of a higher fidelity original. Especially given that a central component of my own belief in this topic relates to the similarity between quantum behaviors (indivisible parts of matter) and hacks we have started using in building procedurally generated voxel based virtual worlds.
Why is this being downvoted? It's just a theory and they aren't saying y'all are going to burn for eternity if you don't agree.
Love that stuff. Please never let your curiosity and mind be pulled down by edgy atheists.
Yes
Yes. I think. It's becoming more difficult.
Yes, kind of. I believe there has to be more than can be scientifically proven because otherwise there really isnt much point in this world. I also think there has to be some kind of soul, how else could you be aware of your own mind? Though I wonder if its internal or external and just connected to your body in some nebulous way.
But what I definitely dont believe is that church or anyone who gains material benefit from religion has any connection to god. And what comes to bible, its good starting point and has many good core ideas. Its also a bit corrupted by greedy and powerhungry people so it shouldnt be relied upon if you can't filter it. Other religions likely also have good ideas in their holy texts though they are likely harder to understand and relate to due to cultural differences.
Ones relationship with god is extremely personal and no one can't order you about with it.
No, all religion is dumb.
Yes. (Jewish)
If there is a cake there must be a baker
A baker. Pay attention.
There's the law of conservation of energy: energy can't be created nor destroyed. Then how did we get the initial energy? The laws of physics must have been violated by some kind of god
No. Conservation of mass and energy only prohibit the total mount of mass and energy changing. The universe could have always existed with that mass and energy. We have good evidence that a lot of mass and energy was spread out by the expansion of a much smaller universe around 13.8 billion years ago, but we don't know what the universe was like before that, it could have always existed, or it could have been formed by the collapse of another universe, we don't know for sure.
Anyway, the laws of physics are just empirical observations, they have been proven wrong before. Einstein's general relativity disagrees with Newton's laws of motion and, further study reveled that Newton was (very subtly under normal conditions) wrong.
If you know the math you know that Newton was in fact not wrong, but merely incomplete. Einstein merely added one addendum, which for Newtons experiments was always zero (for all practical purposes) anyway, so in his empirical setting he was as right as he could possibly get.
I think it’s a misrepresentation to call Newtonian physics “wrong”
The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes 'nothingness' as a default state, despite the fact that nothingness seems to be a philosophical concept incapable of actually existing (even in a vacuum there's zero point energy).
So "how did we get something from nothing" necessitates the task of proving a plausible case for nothingness as an initial state.
And the answer of 'God' as a mechanism just kicks the can up the road, as then you are faced with the question of what created God.
If you claim eternal preexistence of God, then you've landed at the same rejection of nothingness as an initial state just with unnecessary extra steps.
Wrong, it was GodGod
Eh. Humans have (confidently and incorrectly) assumed such causal links for millenia. There's thunder, so there must be a thunder god. There's a sun in the sky, so someone must have put it there. There's people, so someone must have build them from clay.
What we could conclude logically: There is something - so something, somehow, once began.
That's it. It's also kind of recursive. It's factual, but there isn't anything meaningful inevitably following from this.
And everything else is an assumption.
You can say "I chose to believe that this somehow was a someone." You could decide to believe that there was a personal entity as a single cause for all that is. Someone who had somewhat of a consciousness, who willingly and deliberately created everything. You could assume that this someone was eternal and all-powerful and therefore later on or even until right now still alive/active. You could speculate about this entity being interested in creating a specific planet with a very specific ecosystem. You could ponder whether this entiry would be interested enough in one species within this ecosystem to watch, influence, and even hold something like a relationship with them.
A bit far fetched, but sure. You wouldn't be the first one to assume all these from a simple "There is a cake".
Except for the divine cake. That one just always existed because I say so.
I don't see any evidence for evolution creating new species. None
Yes, I believe I'm part of God, same as all it exists, we are God, we are energy, we are 1.
I'll have what soulre4er is having.
I mean sure, you can use whatever words to describe whatever you believe, but most people are using a very different definition.
I get it though, in some sense we are the universe's consciousness, made of the same matter which was infinitely compacted a moment before the big bang.
I can't wait until the universe resets so I can be squished next to you again. Or do I mean me? Or we?
I shouldn't have to. Any God worthy of the title would provide clear and irrefutable proof of its own existence.
Nope and those that do are inherently harmful
Abrahamic religions are death cults, indeed they are inherently harmful.
Explain
abrahamic religions goal isn't a happy and healthy life on earth but rather to ascend to heaven. In fact, suffering on earth is a large component to being able to ascend to heaven as far as they are concerned.
I'm jewish and I dissagree with you
Yes. I see evidence of an intelligent designer in things like DNA and the functions of cells. I find it difficult to believe everything evolved by accident through a series of quadrillions of beneficent mutations.
Yes, I believe in the Christian God.
Consciousness fits most definitions of supernatural and it's a profoundly human mistake to try to externalize it.
OP, have you seen a sunset?
Believing in God and believing the Earth is 8000 years old are not the same thing btw
Neither.
Apathy is death
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/KlcaAVUF1uU?t=69
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.