Can't we do most everything without a God? Is God for the simple minded?

A. yes
B. yes

Without the awareness of God you can believe you are doing everything separately and as an individual.
Yes and for everyone else too.

What's a "similar concept" to that of God?

That would be relative to what it is you define God as.

A.) Yes B.) or for the far too over active mind.

G-D, G�D ...

/forum/index.php?showtopic=2694

Thanks for the historic link, HH, when I used a different moniker.

BTW, I do not need G�D anymore than I need breath, gravity, electromagnetism, space/time, things, including people

Why?
Babies are not aware of, or have any physical/mental affiliation/reliance to/upon God/G�D but they do need the other things on your list.

I guess you missed my mild "sarcasm". Spelling it out: It is obvious that I need all the things which I named. So do we all. Because I think of G�D as that which is beyond, around, within and through all things, therefore, I need G�D. So do children; so do atheists, aware or not.

Why would you think that I missed your meaning? I put the example of babies because they have no knowledge of G and you could provide no direct evidence of G influencing their lives. The belief in G by ones (humans) who influence their lives is not the same thing. So essentially my "Why" was asking a rhetorical question, although because of its pejorative nature (though not denigrative, as I value your intellect on this forum) it might have mislead you.

God is the source of energy in my view, I dont go around calling it God usually but using the word gets peoples attention. To me it is the force compelling us on, the reason procreation happens and the force itself wants expression.

We can do everything without an idea about "God", but we must BELIEVE we can do it. The reason for belief and the reason for religion is the same, religion is just a byproduct of humanities belief. Without belief we are unable to create any expression.

God as written in the ancient texts is a political tool, a teacher, a mystery, and above all a simplification. So God is in most respects for the simple minded or those not willing to examine life so closely. Other people are looking for a belief with some evidence, hence all the Golden Ratio sites and "Aliens created the Pyramids" stories.

So my answer is Yes and Sometimes.

And, as you are perhaps aware rhetorical questions are not questions, they are statements. You are not asking us to answer the question as to why we need God; you are simply saying that you do not.

By the way, it does not surprise me that many bright people have given up believing in a god who, in my opinion, is too small.

G�D FOR ME, IS THAT WHICH IS BEYOND HUMAN IMAGINATION
Most of you are now aware that I use the term G�D, not to point to an objective being, or to a human-like person separate and apart from me, because I want a concept which simply points to that which is so large as to defy the human imagination. G�D, if ever understood, will cease to be G�D.

Therefore I use G�D as the shortcut way of saying: The highest power (the Semitic concept of deity), plus the highest idea (The Greek concept), plus the highest good (The Anglo-Saxon concept) and then some. I put all three together: G�D is the ONE powerful and good idea, existence itself, and then some, in which all that is lives and moves and has its being.

Ponder these questions:
What is existence?
Is it possible to exist without existence?
How many dimensions are there to existence?
Is the nature of our existence affected by our moral and ethical behaviour?
Does it matter whether or not we behave like a moral, ethical and loving persons?

Hi Lindsay,

I quote you from above:-

G�D FOR ME, IS THAT WHICH IS BEYOND HUMAN IMAGINATION

As far as I can determine you have imagined GOD (with a slash through the o).
Surely, what you are really saying is that you believe (or have Faith) in all that you do not understand or cannot comprehend? And, you have decided that lot should be called GOD (with a slash through the o).

I would also subscribe to such a definition of God, but do not seem to need any Spiritual aspect (I ssupect that need may arise in awe of the immensity of GOD (with a slash through the o).

All the best,

Bill.

Wow, incredibly straight forward, its a nice change to see someone going straight to the point.

Instead of arguing the existance of God, argue his usefulness? intresting angle.

Well I suppose the emphasis of God's or G-D or however you wanna spell it, G-D's usefulness seems to be predominatly in the 'afterlife'. How does one determine if said afterlife - exists? This is the nature of the argument for G-D, it seems as though little use for this G-D is percivable for this reality.

Now the question is of course is does a second reality exist which the Catholics call Heaven and if so, then does this G-D oversee the admittance and/or denial into this reality?

Thirdly, if a second reality does exist and this G-D does oversee the admittance and/or denial of entry into this reality... is one simply trying to please this G-D out of fear of the consequences if one does not and if so, then are we not looking at a soverienty in which people are forced into doing anothers bidding out of fear of the consequences?

Truely the followers of this G-D are often reffered to as servants, now if this G-D is all loving, then why would it insist on making its followers be servants? Surely if this G-D is all caring, then it would never approve of slavery or servitude...

This leads me to believe that even if the existance of G-D and a second reality known as Heaven could be confirmed. This would be a false 'Heaven' because in order to reach this so called paradise, one must first be commited into slavery.

Now I dont know about you, but being a slave is not my idea of fun, so how could this truely be a 'Heaven'. Rather I think one must find a paradise within their own self, instead of religious dogmas, prehaps what we are looking at is a Wizard of Oz variation? I am the great and powerful OZ! and do not look behind that curtain!

Rhymer, in an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible, writes: To answer your question: Of course I believe in that which I do not understand, as long as it does not contradict my reason. But thanks to reason and science, there is much that I do understand. I call both G�D. I repeat: I certainly do believe that G�D is much more than what I understand, presently.

BTW, atheists, I will agree with you when you say there is no evidence that there is a personal god (God)--that is, one who acts and reacts with human beings and hears and answers prayers, as if He were a super and human-like person. It should be plain to any rational person that the G�D-concept of unitheism is not at all like the God-concept of theism

Therefore, atheists: I challenge you to demonstrate to us posters the rationality of your faith. Do you really believe that your existence, and mine, is a temporary anomily, an accidental blip, in the story of evolution; that all human consciousness will cease with the death of the body of the last human being?

To me this means that you really believe that human life, in the end, is meaningless and totally devoid of goodness, order, and design? What a despair-filled kind of faith!!!

Lindsay, as you well know, rhetorical questions are commonly used to stimulate (sometimes incite) discourse. I wish to understand why (some) people need a God/G�D. This is because I have never received a personally satisfying answer. In my 25 years as an academic scientist (with a couple of real word businesses, so not all ivory towers) I have only heard opinions and anecdotes, and not good evidence. The scientific method is so well accepted in most all other walks of life, that I feel it is essential to use it universally. The scientific method does not generate evidence for the existence of God. Indeed I cannot think of any method that generates such evidence. And I steer clear of wishful thinking and the metaphysical, that are no better than clutching at straws.

I hope for life elsewhere in the universe and I imagine that there are superintelligent beings (probably beyond matter and more ... part of the whole multiverse thing). I also believe that we are mere slime moulds to them and that we have no present chance of detecting or understanding them. Maybe they are God. But I still would not bend on my knee and pray. Given time, we could be them and so the worship would be ridiculously incestuous, rather, a farce. But this is an old argument. So I sit in wait of the discovery of microbial life on Mars or elsewhere, smile at the unmanned craft that some intermediately intelligent aliens might be sending to see what we are like, and I have no fear to die, only a little of the process. And that other unconsciousness (death) and then biodegradation and recycling will be my and your fate, and what a wonderful process that is, although it might run out eventually depending on which physics is the actual one.

HH writes:

The next time you are in a car, as a passenger ask the driver, with a sarcastic tone in your voice: "And who taught you how to drive?" And let me know the response you will get.

Unless the driver is a very understanding type of person, I feel certain that he/she will not give you the name of his/her driving school.

HH comments

BTW, in your profile, why not put some of your basic theological--negative/positive--beliefs so I can know somewhat about where you are coming from. If you are not an atheist, a materialist, etc., what are you? It will help keep me informed as to peoples basic beliefs.

What do you consider is the "ground of all being" as the theologian Tillich named IT.
http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

HH tells us Here's a suggestion, HH: As I have a short memory for foreign words, please put this in your profile so I can check it when I need to. At the same time, please answer the question: Who taught you how to write English? And where do the Elimi natives live?

Can anyone explain how it is that HH is named as the sender of this post?

Just to keep things straight:'Hey Hey' post='71731' date='Nov 16, 2006, 11:32 AM'
HH tells us

Here's a suggestion, HH: As I have a short memory for foreign words, please put this in your profile so I can check it when I need to. At the same time, please answer the question: Who taught you how to write English? And where do the Elimi natives live?

Can anyone explain how it is that HH is named as the sender of a post that HH wrote?

I found something we can't do without a concept of a God: argue about it!

In other words:
1. There are some, who believe in God and who think of Him as an invisible friend.
2. There are others, who "believe" in God and think of Him as anything but, even a false concept.
3. There are some few, who simply experience G�D as all there IS to experience.

4. There are some who dont believe.

5. Then there is Flex who holds nearly all beliefs equally valid, and thus doesn't know what the hell to believe, and therefore doesn't believe anything at all.

Don't "be" and "live" what?

Sorry but I only speak English.

Can't remember his name. Why?

Try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativism
--

And who did post that previous post by HH 'cos it wasn't me?

Thats an odd challenge , asking an atheist to demonstrate the rationality of his faith
Faith" means belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.



From your posts which I have read I find that perhaps you fear the finitude of life. Does the meaninglessness you see in a 'Godless universe' stem from the lack of God, or from how your life will end, followed shortly* thereafter by the rest of the human race? (* 'Shortly' meaning either in human terms (i.e. a few years) or in geological terms (i.e. a few million years).

Neither human life nor the life of a bacterium has any special value. There are biological processes, grounded in the arrangement of atoms and molecules and energy which we call life. It is natural that we feel kinship with others like ourselves, but that is just an emotional attachment. We don't have to "believe" anything special about life. We live, and that is enough.


Let me see if I got this straight.
Atheists believe that when the light goes out, it stays out.
Nothing more nothing less.
therefore
Atheists lead lives filled with despair.
Atheists see life as meaningless.

I find that atheists have a sense of awe of the world. Theists don't even look for beauty on earth, they are too busy anticipating what will happen when they die. I have known some truly gifted atheist artists, poets, musicians, naturalists and so on and it is absurd to suggest that atheists have anything close to a monopoly on this trait

With the existence of god, we would still do our everyday tasks. We would still suffer and feel pain. We would still go through hard times and make mistakes and feel depressed. These emotions don't go away with belief in god. It's just a part of life.

The best evidence indicates that "all human consciousness will cease with the death of the ... last human being." Therefore, it becomes extremely important to keep the human race from becoming extinct. To me, that cause is extremely meaningful. It means that if we succeed, we will have everlasting life. It is an enormous responsibility (to ourselves).

In contrast to the theist's horror in a conception of a despair-filled life, such true knowledge of our purpose is inspiring. The theist retreats into his false comforting platitudes while the realist advances humanity.

Rick, I admire your hopeful realism, your faith, hope and love for the human family.

GONE WITH THE SPIRITUAL WIND--The story of the Last Human Family. Perhaps we should take the time and write the novel.

I have arrived at the same conclusion as Rick.

However I don't think that means life is meaningless as Lindsay proposes.
Whilst we may not be born with a purpose, except perhaps to be loved by ones family setting out on a life-creating adventure, we certainly end up with our purpose being defined by what we achieved in our own lifetime (for self and for Society).
Some may say that what we achieved was our purpose when we were born. I don't think this is the case becasue our lives are dictated to a great extent by what happens during our development (unknowns at birth).
Goodness and order are similarly achieved.
By 'design', I suppose Lindsay is asking what we all ask, "Why are humans and all life forms existant".
This and many similar questions stretch all of our imaginations, and I'm afraid that so far imaginations are all we have.
This does not alter the value of life or the Human experience for me.

I can understand why it may for others.

These are simply my views and should not be taken as a criticism of any anyones Faith.
We are all able to come to our own conclusions (often with help from others) and as Lindsay says, be prepared to discuss them openly and without prejudice or undue criticism.

As time passes and we (humans) explain more and more, fewer and fewer humans will see the need to believe in the supernatural. There may still be groups who have the need to maintain belief; for example, the political manipulators of the simple-minded and, of course, the insane. I see the former as no more than users of a supernatural "tool" to gain a sort of evolutionary advantage, as they have no better mechanism to try and dominate. Trouble is, no-one has yet seen a way out of the evolution trap. Most routes out are delusions and there are too many easily manipulatable humans. It will take a long time to treat the religion virus. Maybe we will be lucky and a vaccination might be developed, or more likely gene therapy will be our saviour (). Then we will be a step closer to a peaceful existence.

Opinions never dilute the reality of what exists. Spirituality is the necessary ingredient that causes all of life to expand and evolve.

By the way 90% of humanity still believes in a God of some sort..

And I wonder what percentage of those are illiterate? I also wonder how peaceful/happy the 90% of humanity is that believe in a God is opposed to those who do not.

If you mean that science challenges fizzled out religious ideas by evidence, then yes perhaps spirituality aids life to expand.

Your not attempting to stereotype illiteracy with spirituality are you?
Is peace and happiness something that comes with intellect?


No I mean that spirituality is the essence which drives both what is labeled as scientific and religious.

The nature of Self to expand itself in awareness through experience follows many roads.
If you think the one you follow is better than any other road you might think your way is the only way.
But then if you had only yourself to talk to in a world full of people doing the same thing you do, looking exactly like you and saying exactly what you say, you would limit all possibility to a very finite expression and direction.

Joesus I am really trying to understand where you coming from, so bear with me here.
You say that the nature of Self to expand in awareness and experience.... here I agree with you
that this nature most people have does lead to development and progress. However does this
mean that you say that people without spirituality do not have an awareness of self or seek to
enhance/develop self?

Why do you say spirituality is what drives science? Religion yes, science no.

Take spirituatlity out of the box and try not to associate it with any definitions of religion.
Religion is a word and it's often attached to a belief system, and to some it instigates the thought of fanatacism.
Lets look at rationality here for a minute. Would any objective thought process eliminate the beliefs of reality from any approach to understanding? Every step has a direction. You might as well kill the baby after its born if you think its struggle to reach adulthood is meaningless in light of the fact that billions have already done so making its life and its experience redundant.

What drives us is intelligent, resonates with compassion and links us together as a species and connects us as a species to our universe and its perceptions.
That drive is neither religious nor scientific, because it existed before these words were created to break down it's essence into categories of belief.

Spirituality (also a word) represents this drive, and is divided amongst the masses and attached to individual perceptions of reality.

There is no thing that is not spiritual for the word spirit simply represents what lives beyond corporeal finitudes.

That was a highly philosophical post in a few short sentances Joesus, nicely done. If we look at Spirituality from a non religious point of view, there are two schools of thought one might approach from.

1. The spirit is incased within the body, the body is its prison and it cannot leave until the death of the body.
2. The spirit is a psychological manifestation of man kinds desire to live forever and be remembered, the spirit is seen as the essence of those memories and thoughts.
Or the spirit could be seen as the core fundamental of consciousness.

From these three possibilities, we can derive relativly simple answers

1. We live on, prehaps the spirit goes to another body, prehaps to another plane of existance. Never the less the core driving point is that the spirit enables us, as our conscious selves to continue existance when this form of existance has ended.
2. The spirit will end with the body
3. The spirit will allow our consciousness to move on to a higher level of existance, prehaps be a driving point of the consciousness singularity?

Anyways, those are my inital thoughts, anyone have some thoughts on this?

I'd be interested to know what this higher level of existence might be.

Do you think you could cognize it while maintaining your awareness at the level of your current beliefs?

Absolutely, my level is not too high to still see the possibilities below.

I believe fate is what we make of it, Lindsay. The here and the now belongs to us. And that's an awesome responsability. It's all up to us and no one else. No god, God, GOD or however you want to call it is watching after us. But don't feel bad. This way, should we f**k it all up, there'll be no one else to blame but us!

heh, prehaps this higher level of consciousness is one without a physical body which allows the direct interaction between consciousness?

Maybe we could think of this like a phone, the body is the phone for the mind which allows it to communicate with others. When we reach a higher level of consciousness we speak to each other in person rather than over the phone? Thus allowing a deeper level of interaction between consciousness'

1)In reality: the reason we can do everything is because of God.
2) No, it takes a strong mind and faith to believe in God. For you are believe that which you cannot see, but you know He is there.