I was surprised that there were many topics on various religions, and yet none on God, the focal point of every religion. Hopefully you will reply with intelligent posts. "Religion is useless and God doesn't exist," or posts along those lines, will not aid the discussion in any way. Please express your views in a non-offensive way on what you think the Supreme Power of the Universe actually is, or whether any such thing exists at all.

Since I am a Hindu, I have been brought up worshipping many different Gods depending on my reasons for prayer. However, I believe that all the Gods are manifestations of one ultimate Cosmic Force, created so that we may access the divine in a more personal and finite way. A frequently-used analogy is that of the Ultimate as a light source: instead of having one large light, we have many smaller lights for greater beauty and appeal.

What are your thoughts?

hmm...this is a very interesting subject, but a little difficult one to talk about...i don't know exactly what it is...i can't say there's something supreme out there that rules our lives...maybe there's only one god and religions are only divisions of the same thing...i don't know, its quite complicated...

well, since i am an agnostic, i don't deny any religion, except maybe the craziest ones of all(amish possibly)
and well, the god loves everyone and crap like that is the worst lie ever, since millions of people were dead by god's hand(at least that's what it says in the BIBLE)
and well, like i said, there might be a god, there might be many gods, or none at all. it's just a matter of what you think is true

i believe in god. i dont belong to any religion, since i've made my own opinion about what/who god is. to me, god is just a power. he was the one who created universe (i dont believe in adam and eve or anything like that, but i believe god made big bang happen). I believe that if you pray, your wishes might come true.

im sorry for going a little off-topic, but i have another similar thought on my mind...
we have religion as a subject in school, and some of my friends repel religion without any second thought. i try to explain to them, but they wont listen. what i try to explain is this:
im not sure god exists. but even if he doesnt, i still believe he does. belief is enough for someone to feel strong, secure etc. so why are religions bad? even if he doesnt exist, people will still keep praying when they live through hard times. they will still feel trust for god, and they live with the hope that they will come to heaven when they die. so thinking that someone is stupid for believing in god is very wrong. the idea of God is great!

Written by Guest on 10.11.2006 at 17:01

the idea of God is great!

Yeah, seriously.
Why should you look for strength in yourself, when you can look for it in something that was never proven to exist?
Why should you learn to deal with all sorts of problems, when you can pray instead?
Why should you develop your own ethical code based on its usability in modern society, when you can just follow what was written by some freaks a few thousand years ago?

In truth, easier means better, right? It's not like there are any side effects of people believing in gods.
I mean we cannot really count all those cases of politicians using religion to control masses. So we had a Holy Crusade or two. A little bit of bloodshed never hurt anyone. WWII? People shouldn't be born Jewish or Polish in the first place. How about Spanish Inquisition? Some historicians say that it was a political tool and all you had to do to get rid of someone you don't like, was to call him a witch. But we know better! They surely were dangerous sons and daughters of Cain himself!
And then there's slavery of Africans during colonisation of US, based on the fact that there's nothing wrong with that. After all The Word of God himself doesn't mention anything about black-skinned people. It should mean that they're inferior animals, no?
Opression against homosexuals? Someone who feels different cannot feel at all. Pagans? They worship satan, so they constitute a threat for the society.
And really, why should we strive for uniting, when we can divide ourselves into Christians, Muslims, Wiccans and so on instead?
Yeah, the idea of God is so awesome!

Seriously though, I cannot blame your friends for not listening to such poor arguments.
Humanism >> Theism, period.

Anyway as for the topic itself. It's nice to look for "The Almighty" and all, but it's even nicer to look for beauty in what you can already see. No point in looking into stars, when you still don't perceive what's happening under your feet.

@Skald: I'm sure many people would agree with me when I say that you sir, are a fucking Asswhole. We all already know about how you wanna make everybody think just like you, but the fact is he believes, and some of us may have experienced things that go beyond the phathoming of what one with a mundane mind such as yourself can comprehend. It's cool that you're a humanist, but he has different beliefs than you, respect it and leave him alone, period, dickhead. Maby we can develop a sense of self strength and ethics and still have a higher power, did you ever think of that? Oh, and maby our perception of what a "Freak" is is different than your own, so the bottom line is, stop pushing your Ideals on people, or leave this fucking site.

But anyway, now that I've said that, I'll tell it from my perspective. I believe in the existence of all gods and entities, but I don not claim them all as my own. I have my patron gods/ goddesses, but I don't believe that any single deity is the central focal point of all religions, I just don't see how a single being can hold all the power in the universe, or how one religions gods can be true and those of another are a lie. I personally am more of a spiritualist anyway, meaning that I put more into my own spiritual growth and expansion than I do in my religion. I also believe that in our own token way, we are all gods and goddesses, think about what we must be like to an ant, or to the micro-organisms that live inside of us. We are their World (The Micro-organisms that is) and to them we must be "All mighty" and Eternal, but if only they could realize the powers that we Believe to exist, they would see that we arn't everything. Maby those who believe in the Christian/Muslum/hebrew god could apply it in the same way, maby god isn't everything. But that's just how I see it, there is no largest, it just keeps getting bigger, and there is no smallest, there will always be smaller, and in the end, we are all equals.

Here's a nice quote for you:

Written by Guest on 10.11.2006 at 17:01

so why are religions bad?

He asked, I answered. So for this I'm an asshole, dickhead and whatever else? I don't understand how this logic works, but maybe it's because I have "munduane" mind, eh?
I admit that sarcasm isn't the nicest way of answering, but all this has been said so many times, that it becomes almost silly to repeat it.

Whatever man, I'm just sayng that I'm tired of you just constantly attacking people for thinking differently than you. They write a post, you see the smallest oppoutunity to attack it, and you shoot them down in any way you can. I can't really do anything about it but voice my oppinion, but quite frankly, I'm tired of it. Now let's stop this here because really, this is a spam post. If you wanna keep this going we can do it over P.M., if not, that's fine with me.

@Skald: so if we only had one religion, or perhaps no religion at all, in the world, everything would be fine? there would be no wars?
dont you think that the people with the power would have come up with another excuse to start a war? when usa went to vietnam, was the reason different religions?
it's man that starts war, not religion. men with power only want more power. they dont care about religion. they dont care about politics. they just want more power, more money.
so this doesnt really fit the thread topic.

@Arian Totalis: why cant there be just one god? to me, that sounds more logic than if there were several gods. to me, god is everything. if there were several gods, they would all still be part of the "everything" and they would therefore be the same god.

@Archor: Well, even if there were one, great powerful being, that was greater than any other gods, than there would still be the existance of other gods, see? But even then, A deity goes beyond our comprehension, in this life we can never fully understand what their capable of, only after death can we see this (According to my beliefs anyway). So we can never know what deity is more powerful than the other, What's to say that the christian god is more powerful than My own? The Bible? I hate to tell you dude but the bible was written by men in the time preiod of Constantanobles war with rome, The emporer Constantine himself had the texts compliled, so you don't know what's fact and what's fiction. Furthermore, Seeing as how one of us is a monotheist and one of us is a Polytheist, we will never be able to agree because you believe there is one god, I believe there are many. In any case I respect your beliefs and thoughts.

@Achor: Nope, I'm not saying this. I'm saying religion makes things like controlling masses easier. But you're right, this doesn't belong here.

Anyway, back to topic:
Being interested in connections between mysticism and science, there's certain theory that really appeals to me. It's kind of old if we'll look at eastern culture, but now it also has some scientific support in the west.
The theory deals with how human mind can influence the reality, depending on how the reality is perceived by the mind in the first place. Strong belief along with the proper state of one's mentality could cause something that would be perceived as 'miracle' by others.
Now to the point:
Most likely you all heard the term "God didn't create the human, the human created God". What if it's true? As in, human really created god, not just as a theoritical concept, but as a being that was brought to 'life' by human mind? If extremely strong belief in gods could bring an outcome like that, then in return such believers would probably observe returning manifestations of such godly powers. Or feel their presence in various moments of their lives.
Why miracles (positive and negative alike) only happen to those who truly believe? If gods wanted to show an account of their existence, wouldn't they manifest themselves to non-believers? God did in the Bible.
Any thoughts on this concept?

@Skald: Yes, it's a very intresting theory indeed, I actually kind of feel that it has some truth to it.

@Skald: Good point. I think 'God' does in fact become manifest to so-called 'unbelievers', in the form of 'miracles', but the unbelievers don't accept the occurrences as divine, rather as coincidence or something else that can explain it without accepting any higher powers.

Religion is just the product of various cultures to interpret the same thing. There are billions of people in this world, of course we're going to have diversity. Sit down five kids in a room, describe an animal to them, and see what you get. I'd expect similar, yet totally unique creations. Man is man from birth to death and these kind of examples would be useful for any situation. To me, if there is a God or many, they are totally incomprehensible to us. I don't think a true knowledge of the divine could ever be understood, so people throughout the ages have composed different ways to interpret God.

Whether or not a supreme being actually exists, I don't believe that one does, but I don't deny it either. I do not know.

For my answer to this question, I shall recite one of the most chilling phrases in history as was originally created by Friedrich Nietzsche: "God is dead." Now to actually contribute to the discussion, man created God many thousands of years ago to explain the things that man could not explain back then. During ancient times, man did not understand natural phenomena such as storms, eruptions, and earthquakes, and to explain these occurrences in nature, man created God. This meant that whenever it started to rain, man could say "God did it". With the new advances in science, God has been shrunk to the point where he is now completely insignificant in our everyday lives. With all of this, I guess it was a self-fulfilling prophecy when Nietzsche said that "we have killed Him".

Written by Guest on 21.09.2007 at 04:23

For my answer to this question, I shall recite one of the most chilling phrases in history as was originally created by Friedrich Nietzsche: "God is dead." Now to actually contribute to the discussion, man created God many thousands of years ago to explain the things that man could not explain back then. During ancient times, man did not understand natural phenomena such as storms, eruptions, and earthquakes, and to explain these occurrences in nature, man created God. This meant that whenever it started to rain, man could say "God did it". With the new advances in science, God has been shrunk to the point where he is now completely insignificant in our everyday lives. With all of this, I guess it was a self-fulfilling prophecy when Nietzsche said that "we have killed Him".

So you mean to say that science can explain everything today? While I agree that less things are attributable to divine forces than in previous years, there still remain many things that science cannot explain. So, God may be dying, but sure as hell isn't dead yet!

I don't want to get too far off topic, but science cannot explain everything. In fact, you need just as much faith to believe in science as you do to believe in religion. Science has its flaws and I don't see why science is more plausible than religion. Just because it bases its hypotheses on evidence does not make it more valid. For example, no one has ever seen sub-atomic particles or quarks, yet they still believe they are there. Science makes many assumptions and if you look at the progress of science, it's changed significantly in the last thousand years and I'm sure that in the next thousand years it will again change.

Now, getting back on topic. I personally don't believe in a greater being. I have had a religious upbringing, however as C.J.W.Wyatt said, I just think that a universal truth is beyond human comprehension. I don't entirely doubt the existence of a God, however, I'm more indifferent to the idea.

Written by Judas on 21.09.2007 at 05:07

So, God may be dying, but sure as hell isn't dead yet!

Nice one!

My view on God? Hmm, difficult. I'd probably be in the 'Agnost' category. I don't know if God exists, I don't think I'll ever know, and I don't really care that much either. I just live my life down here.

Im still searching and building my spirituality. The more and mroe I read about differrent views and interpretations, the more I see that God(s) or Goddesse(s) can be attributed to things in our everday life...nature, the cycle of life, human developement, evolution. But that is just my opinion, I also apply this opinion symbolically to things I see in life as well.

Written by Clintagräm on 20.09.2007 at 23:03

Religion is just the product of various cultures to interpret the same thing. There are billions of people in this world, of course we're going to have diversity. Sit down five kids in a room, describe an animal to them, and see what you get. I'd expect similar, yet totally unique creations. Man is man from birth to death and these kind of examples would be useful for any situation. To me, if there is a God or many, they are totally incomprehensible to us. I don't think a true knowledge of the divine could ever be understood, so people throughout the ages have composed different ways to interpret God.

Whether or not a supreme being actually exists, I don't believe that one does, but I don't deny it either. I do not know.

I agree. I would like to believe that there is something else, something spiritual like a God or Gods, but all religions are just different interpretations of that. I think that if there are higher beings out there somewhere, they're laughing at all these religions that people have created.

Written by Eternal Flames on 21.09.2007 at 08:31

Just because it bases its hypotheses on evidence does not make it more valid.

Uhh, yes it does. Moer wierd assertion how ohters.

Written by Hyvaarin on 21.09.2007 at 17:36

Written by Eternal Flames on 21.09.2007 at 08:31

Just because it bases its hypotheses on evidence does not make it more valid.

Uhh, yes it does. Moer wierd assertion how ohters.

A lot of scientific evidence, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is based on assumptions. Therefore, it's not much more valid. For example, atoms. No one has ever seen sub-atomic particles yet their existence is never denied. A lot of the chemistry field branches off the idea of the atomic particles yet it's based on this underlying assumption, hence in my opinion, science should not be any more valid than other belief systems. As far as I'm concerned, science will never be any closer to finding the "truth" than any other doctrine.

Written by Eternal Flames on 22.09.2007 at 09:38

As far as I'm concerned, science will never be any closer to finding the "truth" than any other doctrine.

And what makes you so sure of this? It has explained much, thus far, increasing our understanding of the world we live in, unlike in man's earlier existence on this earth, where not as much is known as later on in history.

Most of what humans once thought was linked to God(s) in this life has already been explained, except for controversial points like and God's existence. So, really only that which is yes to be witnessed in modern times and recorded as happening: the intangible subjects and objects mentioned within religions, for example.

Written by Guest on 22.09.2007 at 10:05

Written by Eternal Flames on 22.09.2007 at 09:38

As far as I'm concerned, science will never be any closer to finding the "truth" than any other doctrine.

And what makes you so sure of this? It has explained much, thus far, increasing our understanding of the world we live in, unlike in man's earlier existence on this earth, where not as much is known as later on in history.

Most of what humans once thought was linked to God(s) in this life has already been explained, except for controversial points like and God's existence. So, really only that which is yes to be witnessed in modern times and recorded as happening: the intangible subjects and objects mentioned within religions, for example.

Why am I so sure of this? How can you be so sure that science has given us a better understanding of the world? I mean, science told us that the world was flat, science told us the phlogiston was the reason behind combustion. There's been countless other theories that have been falsified over the years such as the Aristotelian Theory of Gravity, the Caloric theory, geocentric model/Ptolemaic system, alchemy... the list just goes on and on. And yet for years and years, people believed these theories to be true. So, what makes you so sure that modern proposed theories are true?

Now, I do understand that technology has had a vast impact on science. Yes, new technology has helped scientists discover new things, but technology is still advancing and in another thousand years, new technology may lead science to new discoveries while rejecting old theories. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another cyclical routine and won't get closer to discovering the real truth.

I am not in any way defending any religious beliefs or suggesting the religion is more truthful or vice versa. As I said in my first post, I believe that knowledge of a universal truth in beyond human comprehension. In my opinion, the only reason that science is accepted more widely nowadays is because it bases its theories on empiricism. While that's well and truly good, the scientific method of looking for evidence to support their hypotheses rather than looking for falsifications is science's main fault. I mean, it's easy to prove a theory correct if you're only looking for evidence that supports the theory. I'm sure that if science began to look for falsifications in their theories, a lot of modern beliefs would be rejected.

Written by Eternal Flames on 22.09.2007 at 14:22

Now, I do understand that technology has had a vast impact on science. Yes, new technology has helped scientists discover new things, but technology is still advancing and in another thousand years, new technology may lead science to new discoveries while rejecting old theories. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another cyclical routine and won't get closer to discovering the real truth.

And this is why science is more valid - instead of clinging to outdated ideas and concepts, it rejects/modifies them to accomodate new findings. Sure it's not perfect, but it's pretty much the closest you can get.

Written by Hyvaarin on 22.09.2007 at 15:53

Written by Eternal Flames on 22.09.2007 at 14:22

Now, I do understand that technology has had a vast impact on science. Yes, new technology has helped scientists discover new things, but technology is still advancing and in another thousand years, new technology may lead science to new discoveries while rejecting old theories. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another cyclical routine and won't get closer to discovering the real truth.

And this is why science is more valid - instead of clinging to outdated ideas and concepts, it rejects/modifies them to accomodate new findings. Sure it's not perfect, but it's pretty much the closest you can get.

Well of course each person will be different and interpret such circumstances differently, but to me, these paradigm shifts in science often seem to resemble the changes of religious commitment. The transfer from one scientific belief to another seems much like a conversion experience. One belief falls into a stage of crisis, so therefore instead of accepting the belief to be false, they'll just alter it slightly to make it more sound. Just because it has a level of soundness does not make it any more truthful.

Science might be true, yet it might be false as well. Same goes for religion, while it's theories aren't based on evidence, it could be true, it could be false. As I said already though, I don't think humanity will ever know.

Written by Eternal Flames on 23.09.2007 at 04:42

Well of course each person will be different and interpret such circumstances differently, but to me, these paradigm shifts in science often seem to resemble the changes of religious commitment. The transfer from one scientific belief to another seems much like a conversion experience. One belief falls into a stage of crisis, so therefore instead of accepting the belief to be false, they'll just alter it slightly to make it more sound. Just because it has a level of soundness does not make it any more truthful.

I can see what you're getting at here, but I disagree. Plenty of scientific ideas are rejected as false (flat earth), just as plenty are altered to take into account new evidence. Being more sound may not make it 100% true, but it sure as shit gets it closer.

Written by Hyvaarin on 23.09.2007 at 04:55

Written by Eternal Flames on 23.09.2007 at 04:42

Well of course each person will be different and interpret such circumstances differently, but to me, these paradigm shifts in science often seem to resemble the changes of religious commitment. The transfer from one scientific belief to another seems much like a conversion experience. One belief falls into a stage of crisis, so therefore instead of accepting the belief to be false, they'll just alter it slightly to make it more sound. Just because it has a level of soundness does not make it any more truthful.

I can see what you're getting at here, but I disagree. Plenty of scientific ideas are rejected as false (flat earth), just as plenty are altered to take into account new evidence. Being more sound may not make it 100% true, but it sure as shit gets it closer.

Oh yes, of course, it had falsified some of it's theories while still just altering new ones. But couldn't it be possible perhaps that the original theory was entirely incorrect? Altering it there would make it sound, but still not true. However, because it's scientific evidence, people would assume that it must be true. As I already said, it's easy to confirm every theory, if you look for confirmations. I mean, if science began look for falsifications, they'd be back to square one.

Another problem with science is the use of inductive reasoning. Instead of starting with true statements, it starts with observations and then forms a conclusion. It doesn't use logic of nature, but instead uses observations to form a justified true belief.

To each their own I guess.

Well, I guess it is time I chime in on this little thread. In fact, talking about 'God' is sort of what I do for a job.

I guess I should lay down my basic beliefs. I am a Neo-Evangelical Christian Anarchist. Yeah, that is a mouthful.

Basically it breaks down to the fact that the only authority I answer to is God. I believe that there is one God, divided into three parts, The Father, Son and Spirit. The Son came to Earth in the form of Jesus who fullfilled the attonment and defeated the Morning Star. Jesus is my Lord, Savior and friend.

So that is where it begins for me.

Written by Eternal Flames on 23.09.2007 at 05:37

Oh yes, of course, it had falsified some of it's theories while still just altering new ones. But couldn't it be possible perhaps that the original theory was entirely incorrect?

Yes, that's why some theories get rejected totally.

Quote:
Altering it there would make it sound, but still not true. However, because it's scientific evidence, people would assume that it must be true As I already said, it's easy to confirm every theory, if you look for confirmations. I mean, if science began look for falsifications, they'd be back to square one.

I'm pretty sure that the whole point of science is to look at everything - confirmations and falsifications alike.

Quote:
Another problem with science is the use of inductive reasoning. Instead of starting with true statements, it starts with observations and then forms a conclusion. It doesn't use logic of nature, but instead uses observations to form a justified true belief.

Exactly what is the "logic of nature", and how can we know what it is without using the scientific method of inductive reasoning?