# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  In what God(s) do you believe ?

## Maciamo

I know I already posted another thread with poll named "What is your religion", but this survey is a bit different. I am NOT asking what is one's religion, but only if you believe in God(s) regardless of what specific religion you belong to.

----------


## cicatriz esp

I believe in none. I have no religion. We all go to the same place when we die.

----------


## december

I'm a Baptist... but I wouldn't call myself a good Christian cause I have sinned. Oh, how I have sinned....

----------


## TwistedMac

since there is no "I am God" option I'm gonna go with the "there is no god" one.

I am god would sort of be a valid option though.
I consider myself the god of my world. My world revolves around me and was created the second I became conscious of my surroundings.
Everything I say or do has great impact on how my world turns out.
I can actively change how my world will turn out.

By some definitions, I am my God.

----------


## Thor

I don't know if god exists or not.

----------


## mad pierrot

> By some definitions, I am my God.


I'd vote the same way.
I'm sort of a non-dualist.

----------


## No-name

I wish I could say something funny or original, but I'm pretty conventional here. There is a God. He created everything, became a man in the person of Jesus to die for our sins, and rose on the third day. (I didn't make this up, i read it somewhere.)

I would try to say that I am God, but I can't even find my glasses and keys.

----------


## mad pierrot

Heh heh, I can't even remember what I did 10 minutes ago.
 :Poh:  
I should probably try to explain my answer a bit more. 
You = random coalescence of atoms. You are made up of stuff that was around before, and will be around after you die. You are, essentially, made out of the same stuff as everything else. Energy. Energy, according to the laws of thermodynamics, cannot either be created or destroyed. Sounds kinda religious, doesn't it? 
If you think differences exist, they do. If you don't think there are differences, there are none. The source is the same; but people are always trying to set up categories between their ego and something else. That's just what language does to conciousness. (See Wittgenstien.)

Since I can't write worth a damn, here's some Aldous Huxley.

 :Drink:  

"Dualism, without it there can hardly be good literature. With it, there most certainly can be no good life."

----------


## Miss_apollo7

I am also my own God...decide for myself and make my own "destiny".....according to my dear philosophy.
ah....it is great to be God.  :Smiling:  

Haha, seriously, I don't follow any religion..  :Laughing: 

actually, I voted twice in this poll.

God doesn't exist AND

I am my own God....

Maybe it sounds dubious, but it isn't, so I will explain further:

My opinion, there is no God, only us to decide our lives, hence: we are all Gods...in ourselves with free will (existentialism)...

----------


## Winter

I liked the last option.

The Goddess to me is everything, and we are a part of Her beacon of energy.

She doesnt have a faith orchestrated after Her though.

My Goddess' wisdom far surpasses that of conventional judgments, in that She has absolutely no concious mind to predestin, or create the possible outcomes that we encounter in our lives. She cant interfere with the lives of Her children, in that She is living in the lives of Her children. She loves absolutely, in that She has no feelings at all. She is, in fact, incapable of grasping concepts of love, as she is all, and in becoming all, is less than nothing, and therefore worthy of no heed or worship.

At least, thats what I believe.

----------


## sgt. Pepper

I don't belive in any god.

----------


## Fantt

I guess I'm not sure. It doesn't seem very important to me. If there is a god, I guess that's nice. I wish she'd do something about this mess she created, but I understand if she can't cause this whole universe thing is pretty big.

Also, your question assumes that our belief is static. My belief, whatever it is, is fluid and changes from moment to moment. I think we can also believe and not believe at the same time.

----------


## Mimmy_08

I believed in God, I believe in one almighty God who created the Universe and judge our everyday life

----------


## Master X

by reading some of the posts, I'm disapointed. But thats not my business to interphere.
You guys are doomed...

----------


## babar-san

i deffinately belieave in god. one god. but i dont think that human beings could possibly ever understand "what" it is. i dont think its a "he", i dont think its a "she", i think its an "it" that takes many forms..but i do not think we are judged, i think we decide for ourselves whitch path we take.

----------


## Fantt

I guess I feel that any god that "dooms" people or sends people to hell for having an alternative viewpoint isn't really worth worshipping. That doesn't sound like the work of an omnibenevolent being to me.

I like Winter's answer a lot. I don't know if I "believe" it, but I like it. It really reminds me of the ending to "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins. Have you read that?

----------


## Lina Inverse

I believe neither in God nor in any other freaky imaginary beings like the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause or whatever else.  :Haihai:

----------


## No-name

I've SEEN Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.  :Smiling:

----------


## EscaFlowne

Originally raised as a baptist. I have seen alot and have my own opinions now so i'm kinda undecided. looking for a new religion.  :Balloon:

----------


## Maciamo

> I've SEEN Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.


Who hasn't ? I have seen MANY different Sanat Claus and many Easter Bunny.  :Poh:  I have even eaten some easter bunny (chocolate ones).

----------


## canadian_kor

Takes more faith to believe in non-God than God.

----------


## Winter

> Takes more faith to believe in non-God than God.


You know, I've heard of circular logic, but never 'run-into-a-brick-wall logic'.

It takes an _absence_ of faith to not believe in something onmipresent like the Goddess or a god, you confused Canadian.  :Blush:

----------


## TwistedMac

> You know, I've heard of circular logic, but never 'run-into-a-brick-wall logic'.
> 
> It takes an _absence_ of faith to not believe in something onmipresent like the Goddess or a god, you confused Canadian.


I agree with the confused canadian. but sure, have it your way. add a confused swede to the list.

People have always turned to gods to explain what they couldn't explain. If you believe that there is no God, you have to put your faith in the fact that even though I can not explain it right now, there is a reasonable explanation to it. Takes alot of faith when everyone tells you it's the work of "God". That they already have the answer.

----------


## Fantt

It's a lot more difficult to think for yourself than to allow others to think for you.

----------


## babar-san

well, if the worlds leading particle physisists cant explain why we are here, i refuse to believe that their is "no" reason. i have studied both sides of the story, science wants us to believe that first, there was nothing, surrounded by "nothingness", and then, a big bang, and "poomph" there waseverything. religion would have us believe that the universe as we know it was created by an all powerfull intellect beyond our grasp of realism.
i dont buy the part about first there was nothing, and then there was everything. i think there is something much larger in the picture, and although i could never understand it, i have faith that we are not here for nothing. compare yourself to every other creature on earth. if you tell me we evolved from apes, thats fine, we probably did, but where did the apes come from, where did the one-celled organisms at the bottom of the ocean near the volcanic vents come from. if you are talking about christianity or catholocism my point is, the roman catholic church, has over the centuries done its best to turn tragedy into terror. and create a ruling class royal family. jerks. and re-write many chapters in the bible to their liking. many ppl who have never read a bible from front to back cannot in fairness speculate upon the motives, of the diety in question. like buddha said when asked about the "christ" figure in the east, he replied "how would i know, i wasnt there." the idea that everything we know came out of nowhere, (and im not talking about the big bang, im talking about why the big bang happened to begin with) is an even farther reach for me, than to believe that god created it. for instance, a lot of ppl believe in ghosts and magic. ive never seen a ghost, or any magic, but i believe they exist to some extent. over 80% of the world is religious, my point is, they are religious for a reason. i believe in both science and god. 
i believe both of them have valid arguments. but i do not believe that science will ever provide us with a "why". i think that only god can tell us that, and science can only tell us "how". i do not believe in the conventional views of god, like i said, i think it an "it". but i do believe it exists. 

until maybe "aliens" show up and show us all how it happened, and im inclined to believe thats not so far off the chain either....hhmmmmmm  :Doubt:

----------


## Winter

> religion would have us believe that the universe as we know it was created by an all powerfull intellect beyond our grasp of realism.
> i dont buy the part about first there was nothing, and then there was everything.



Not every belief system is like that, you know.

And most people here seem to be stuck in the mindset that the Supreme is here to dictate our lives; again, not every belief system dictates that idea.

----------


## Pandoraknight

I noticed that you didn't have anything for you believe in God, but a different one than the God we think of. Myself, I believe in a God and Goddess who exist in everything and are simply the collected spirits (I'm still thinking about this spiritually).

I would have checked that I believe in multiple gods (two) but I think you are being sterotypical a little. I don't think they represent different things, but instead they are just like peices of a puzzle.

Anyways, it would be nice if you added a "I believe in a God and Goddess" box for those of us who are Wiccan, etc.

Nice idea, by the way! :)

----------


## babar-san

> Not every belief system is like that, you know.
> 
> And most people here seem to be stuck in the mindset that the Supreme is here to dictate our lives; again, not every belief system dictates that idea.


thats why i mentioned buddha. but if you are talking about the 3 major world religions, hindi, islam, and christianity, then what i said applies. of course not "every" belief system believes that way, hell, my ancestors were druids, and i hold onto some of that tradition. but dictating? depends on what religion your speaking of. if its christianity then no, we were given free will to do whatever we like, and believe in whatever we like. having a choice. that doesnt sound like a dictatership to me.

----------


## Winter

Get the stick out of your ass man, you knew what I was talking about.

----------


## babar-san

> Get the stick out of your ass man, you knew what I was talking about.



what part of what i said offended you? sorry, but it looks like the one with a stick in her ass is you  :Wavey:  do yourself a favor and do your homework, and actually, your reply was sorta vague, so, no, i didnt know what you were talking about. be a little more specific next time  :Balloon:

----------


## cicatriz esp

Science has never argued that at first there was nothing. There was never "nothing". The universe has always been.

----------


## babar-san

ive never read a astrology book that said there was a universe before the big bang, its only speculation that there was, not theory, because theres no way to prove it. but ive read plenty of physics and astrology books that argue that b4 the big bang, our dimension was void space. "nothingness" - http://www.mkaku.org/

----------


## bossel

> ive never read a astrology book that said there was a universe before the big bang, its only speculation that there was, not theory, because theres no way to prove it. but ive read plenty of physics and astrology books that argue that b4 the big bang, our dimension was void space. "nothingness" - http://www.mkaku.org/


I hope, you read astronomy books, not astrology!
But obviously you misunderstood a lot of what you read, anyway (or read the wrong books). When you say that "science wants us to believe that first, there was nothing, surrounded by "nothingness", and then, a big bang, and "poomph" there waseverything", you're simply wrong.

Science is not a religion, I haven't heard of any dogma which states the above. There may be individual scientists who adhere to such an idea as if it is a religion, but that's not really scientific. 
If you would have read the right stuff you'd know that this is just one of many ideas surrounding the Big Bang. There is enough evidence to be quite sure something like the Big Bang happened, but what came before & other details are still open to discussion.

----------


## Fantt

Thanks, Bossel. That's pretty much what I was going to say. Science implies no belief, in fact it attempts to avoid any dogma or faith. There are certainly dogmatic scientists, but that's not what science is about. From the standpoint of science, there is no conflict at all with religion. The conflict arises when religious people find their reality tunnels threatened by the things that current scientifc theories imply.

----------


## Winter

> what part of what i said offended you? sorry, but it looks like the one with a stick in her ass is you  do yourself a favor and do your homework, and actually, your reply was sorta vague, so, no, i didnt know what you were talking about. be a little more specific next time


Yeah, deep thoughts Mr. Marx.

Anyway, who's offended? You didnt hurt my feelings.

And for future reference, next time you're going to make an attempt to insult me, could you be a little more creative? Vomitting the same remark made to you back at me just isnt fun to read.

----------


## cicatriz esp

> ive never read a astrology book that said there was a universe before the big bang, its only speculation that there was, not theory, because theres no way to prove it. but ive read plenty of physics and astrology books that argue that b4 the big bang, our dimension was void space. "nothingness" - http://www.mkaku.org/


1. lol @ "astrology"

2. I've never read any book that states or attempts to state that there was nothing in existence before the big bang. As you probably know from your books, time slows down as one approaches an object of great mass. The greater the mass of the object, the more time slows. Now try to imagine the mass of the pre-big bang universe crammed into an object the size of the earth. As one approached that object, time would pretty much cease to exist. The concepts of "before" and "forever" pretty much go out the window.

But it is hard to think about things without the concept of time because it flies in the face of all of one's prior conceptualizations of the way things work. It doesn't completely negate the need for a god to explain origin, but it's at least something.

----------


## mad pierrot

> Science implies no belief, in fact it attempts to avoid any dogma or faith. There are certainly dogmatic scientists, but that's not what science is about. From the standpoint of science, there is no conflict at all with religion. The conflict arises when religious people find their reality tunnels threatened by the things that current scientifc theories imply.


word.


And remember, the only answer is 42, so long and thanks for all the fish.

 :Blush:

----------


## babar-san

eyea, sorry bout that, meant "cosmology" lol, i think you are taking things out of context guys. if science does not imply belief, then why does it exist? science is the persuit of truth, through practical explanation. that implies that if something is true, it can be believed in, if not, why try to prove it? i deffinately understand everything ive read, from string theory, to m theory, to membranes, and the theory of everything. (an actual theory) if you have not, i would recommend it. until then, dont berate me for making a typo. and yes, CICATRIZ ESP, there has absolutely been an estimation of the age of teh known universe. you said the universe has always been, if that is true, why do todays experts believe it to be in the neighborhood of 13 billion yrs old? pin-pointing the origins of our universe original and largest gamma bursts? to say that there was a universe b4 our own, applying the theory that the universe expands and contracts, is still hypothetical, and has never been solid theory, because we will never see our own contract, it is still expanding, and will continue to do so for untold millenia. 
bossel, i did not mean in any way that there is any dogma surrounding science, simply, ppl believe what they read, especially when it comes from experts in a field like particle physics. and i understand it just fine. again, you have taken what i have said out of context. 
WINTER, nor was i trying to insult you any more than offend you, but you are obviously uptight, and insulted me first, so, if you want to trade blows, we can do that too. but then again, arguing with a crystal magic, bark-eating femanist, pagan wanna be trendy dirt merchant would be beneath me. so hats off to you mrs. mulligan:) i was studying paganism, (including wicca) druidism, ritual magic, demonology, satanism, the triple goddess, gaian mind set philosophy, the occult, and christianity while you were going through puberty, so please, for the sake of rationalism, drop the attitude, its really un-becoming and un necessary.

----------


## Sensebend

> I'm a Baptist... but I wouldn't call myself a good Christian cause I have sinned. Oh, how I have sinned....


 Christians aren't perfect just forgiven! God bless!

----------


## babar-san

> Christians aren't perfect just forgiven! God bless!


amen Sensebend  :Cool:

----------


## bossel

> that implies that if something is true, it can be believed in, if not, why try to prove it?


Science actually tries to prove things, so that you don't need to believe! If something is proven, we know it. Belief is only necessary if you don't know, but feel some urge to be sure of something. 
There are people who don't need belief. If they don't know, they wait till something becomes known or actively pursue knowledge.




> Christians aren't perfect just forgiven! God bless!


Depends on the denomination, I think. Some denominations actually expect repentance before you can be forgiven.

----------


## Fantt

Most scientists will tell you that it's very difficult/impossible to definitively "prove" anything. We can just make more accurate maps of reality seen from different perspectives.

----------


## CorDarei

> Yeah, deep thoughts Mr. Marx.


His name's Mr. Marx?? I thought it was babar-san...





> ...so hats off to you mrs. mulligan...


And here I was thinking her name was Winter (if she's really a woman).

You know, I think you guys should be more careful about using the right name...


(I guess I shouldn't assume that babar-san is a man, either...)

----------


## bossel

> Most scientists will tell you that it's very difficult/impossible to definitively "prove" anything.


I doubt that. You're overly pessimistic here. Many things are possible to prove, esp. in natural sciences. It's a bit harder when it comes to humanities, though.

----------


## Fantt

Hmmm...

From here:




> Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions, only those that pertain to physical reality (measurable empirical experience). Also, science cannot possibly address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer becomes important. _Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth_. Rather, science consistently tests the currently best hypothesis about some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it in light of new observations or data.
> 
> Science does not make any statements about how nature actually "is"; science can only make conclusions about our observations of nature. The developments of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century showed that observations are not independent of interactions, and the implications of wave-particle duality have challenged the traditional notion of "objectivity" in science.
> 
> Science is not a source of subjective value judgements, though it can certainly speak to matters of ethics and public policy by pointing to the likely consequences of actions. However, science can't tell us which of those consequences to desire or which is 'best'. What one projects from the currently most reasonable scientific hypothesis onto other realms of interest is not a scientific issue, and the scientific method offers no assistance for those who wish to do so. Scientific justification (or refutation) for many things is, nevertheless, often claimed.


Back to the discussion concerning science and religion, religion DOES make statements concerning absolute and unquestionable truth. Therein lies the big difference.

----------


## Winter

> His name's Mr. Marx?? I thought it was babar-san...


It was a sarcastic implication or babar having a mind like Karl Marx.

And babar; I'm glad you assume I'd waste my time with paganism, just because I believe in my Goddess.

Just so you know, my Goddess has NO CORRELLATION to any of those worthless *opinion* pagan faiths.

Speaking of the depth of knowledge of the aged sir *wow, a cool 8 years older than myself*, you know for someone who boasts of being learned when yours truly dawned the diaper, you'd think you'd know how to flex some of that wisdom a bit better instead of shrugging me off as somewhat of a 'whippersnapper'.

----------


## CorDarei

> You're an idiot, you know that?


Gee, no I didn't know that. I can see now it was wrong of me not to take your pissing contest seriously. (Incidentally, I think babar-san has the advantage here; guys can piss farther than girls can, usually)

----------


## bossel

> Back to the discussion concerning science and religion, religion DOES make statements concerning absolute and unquestionable truth. Therein lies the big difference.


Right from your source:

"Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature. Science is also the scientific knowledge that has been systematically acquired by this scientific process."

Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge, but well, it's not perfect. As I said, you have to distinguish: there are fields in which proof is possible, others in which it is hard to achieve, yet others in which it may be impossible.

----------


## Winter

> Gee, no I didn't know that. I can see now it was wrong of me not to take your pissing contest seriously. (Incidentally, I think babar-san has the advantage here; guys can piss farther than girls can, usually)


*clap clap clap* Bravo.

----------


## Camui

I don't have a religion, but I do believe in God...the all powerful one that created universe and judges us...

----------


## Fantt

> Right from your source:
> 
> "Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature. Science is also the scientific knowledge that has been systematically acquired by this scientific process."
> 
> Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge, but well, it's not perfect. As I said, you have to distinguish: there are fields in which proof is possible, others in which it is hard to achieve, yet others in which it may be impossible.


I think we're just having a disagreement about the word "proof." I'll agree that there are some things which certainly seem to be incontrovertable facts, but philosophically, I'm unwilling to consider much of anything to be an absolute truth. I'm pretty sure that many physicists who are studying the underpinnings of reality itself would probably agree with me on that one.

----------


## babar-san

> It was a sarcastic implication or babar having a mind like Karl Marx.
> 
> And babar; I'm glad you assume I'd waste my time with paganism, just because I believe in my Goddess.
> 
> Just so you know, my Goddess has NO CORRELLATION to any of those worthless *opinion* pagan faiths.
> 
> Speaking of the depth of knowledge of the aged sir *wow, a cool 8 years older than myself*, you know for someone who boasts of being learned when yours truly dawned the diaper, you'd think you'd know how to flex some of that wisdom a bit better instead of shrugging me off as somewhat of a 'whippersnapper'.


no, im just glad to know that you have made the connnection that a lot of pagan practices are indeed very *opinion* based, and lose sight of their druidic ancestry. my ancestors were druids. im 99.9% scottish, clan mCcnab. 
a clandestine scottish clan from the highlands dating back to bc, all the way into the 1400's. i take true druidism very seriously because it is as much a part of me as my faith in god. i have a duality with nature and why its here.
i dont go to church, but i do sit in the woods a lot:) i dont normally like to talk about religion, as ppl are obviously very sensative about the subject. but i also study particle physics, as i find it a facinating field of science. 
true, im not a whole hell of a lot older than you, but i would not care to "flex"
my wisdom as you call it, because this is an *opinion* based thread, and thats all i am here to do. if you would like me to answer any questions you may have however, id be more than happy to try:) i actually lived in a wiccan commune for ahwile in northern vermont, very very wonderfull ppl and good friends, but felt that after some time with them, they were using it more as an identity, and mis-understanding the balance between the goddess and the horned god. there is always a positive and a negative. it is so evident in nature, i couldnt see how it escaped them. but for future reference, if you are going to have a healthy debate or discussion about these subjects with ppl, dont insult them. i never insulted you until your childlike, snide comment. i believe it had something to do with a stick? not once in anything that i wrote did i insult you or try to press my opinions on you. maybe you mis-interpreted something i said? because they were not directed at you. not until you insulted me. and for what its worth, i dont see anyone as a "whippersnapper", 
i have learned a great deal from ppl much younger than i, but like i said, ive done my homework, and when it comes to theology and science, i generally know what im talking about. i respect your beliefs, no mater what they may be. just try to respect my opinions.

BOSSEL - i think again we are mis-understanding one another, i am not implying that there is a belief structure surrounding science, i was simply stating that once something is given reasonable credibility, it becomes common knowledge, until it is either proven, or dis-proven.

----------


## Carth

I believe in a God that created the universe, I just think different cultures go about worshipping and refering name-wise, a same God of many names. I also have a hypothesis that science (In particular physics) are not just principles for which we as humans can graps a better understanding of ourselves and habitat but a universal language by God. 

Spiritual enlightment and science are our only methods of reaching out and touching to this powerful Being.

----------


## Maciamo

So far there doesn't seem to be any Catholics or Anglicans among the 39 people who voted, as nobody chose "I believe in one Almighty God and saints or other lesser gods".

There are 5 Pantheists already (i.e. people who chose "God is everything that exist. We are part of it").

----------


## Kamisama

Stfu. I pwn all of you. Boku wa Kamisama desu!
I'm catholic but i'm being a fool.
I guess being roman catholic it's.. i believe in god and the saints under his wing.
But still being god too is cool. but blasphamy so i'm going straight to hell along with the other ..... 1+1+2+.... 5+ crap i lost count.. sins i've done.

----------


## Foxtrot Uniform

I don't believe in God just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, crab people, psychic phenomena, leprechauns, honest politicians, free porn sites, or ghosts.

----------


## mad pierrot

> free porn sites



Lahahahahrahaa!

----------


## Japanimaniac

I chose I'm not sure, because while I myself am convinced that God doesn't exist, there's no way of telling whether I'm wrong or not. But I'd need some pretty major evidence in His favor for me to change my mind. Otherwise, I'll just wait find out the truth when that time comes.  :Cool:

----------


## Shooter452

> So far there doesn't seem to be any Catholics or Anglicans among the 39 people who voted, as nobody chose "I believe in one Almighty God and saints or other lesser gods".
> 
> There are 5 Pantheists already (i.e. people who chose "God is everything that exist. We are part of it").


I was determined to avoid this "holy war" until you said that. As a practicing RC, I feel empowered to correct you in one respect. Catholics believe first in the doctrine of Trinity. While we certainly have spent a lot of time canonizing some local demi-gods and popular heroes into "saints" (and almost as much time stripping away that title later), the Trinity is a foundation belief.

Ergo, if you are trolling for Roman Catholics with your poll, IMHO you are using the wrong bait when you chum out the stuff about "saints and lesser gods."

Religious faith has much to offer people who are less than satisfied with the explanation of science. The one thing that science can never explain about the creation of the Universe is why we are here.

Me? I wander along waiting for God to pick up the telephone a take my long laundry list of gripes, bitching, and complaints. So far all I have gotten is a busy signal. I guess that is where faith comes in. Unsatisfying as it is, sometime that is all that you get.

_Ceteris paribus, cogito sumere potum alterum_

----------


## JustJosh

I am a panthiest of sorts, and this option sums up my beleifs best; 'God is everything that exists. We are part of it.'

----------


## Shooter452

> I am a panthiest of sorts, and this option sums up my beleifs best; 'God is everything that exists. We are part of it.'


In keeping with the adage that "he who defends everything, defends nothing" and "when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero" I have to wonder if we should also include "if god is everything, then god is nothing."

I must admit that I have always regarded panthiests as people who are too lazy to inquire as to the meaning--if any at all--of God. But who am I to judge? If I knew the mind of God, I wouldn't be talking it over with you guys, now would I?

*sly grin*


_Dei gratia_

----------


## Lina Inverse

> free porn sites


I 100% agree with what you said, except for this bit - there's a good amount of free porn on the net (and some of it is even quite good), if you just look right  :Laughing: 
Being an atheist and thus not having any sick moral inhibitions, I can use them as long and as much as I want to  :Laughing:

----------


## cookie85

Hi,

I define myself as "spiritual but not religious", meaning that I believe in one universal God but don't belong to any religious organization. But I do respect all religions and their believers.

----------


## Japanimaniac

> I 100% agree with what you said, except for this bit - there's a good amount of free porn on the net (and some of it is even quite good), if you just look right 
> Being an atheist and thus not having any sick moral inhibitions, I can use them as long and as much as I want to


You said what I was afraid to say. Nice.  :Poh:

----------


## JustJosh

> In keeping with the adage that "he who defends everything, defends nothing" and "when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero" I have to wonder if we should also include "if god is everything, then god is nothing."


That is a good point. I would add though, when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero, and no heros are needed. You basicly reach a perfect state of humanity no? But, prehaps nature needs chaos and conflict. If god is everything, then god is nothing, and alot of people lose their jobs. ;)




> I must admit that I have always regarded panthiests as people who are too lazy to inquire as to the meaning--if any at all--of God.


Well, I can't counter-argue for the sweeping genralisation of 'other panthiest people', because I don't personaly know any, but just for my own sake, I've read the bible, many works of many religious philosophers, ancient and recent, I lot a lot about Hinduism, Buddhism, polytheistic Greek mythology, I could write a book the size of that lot on my conclusions on God, and I'd probably be regarded as blasphemous, stupid, and generaly insane. The feeling mutual, a Christian feels complete because hes found the 'one true path'. I feel complete knowing I will never get there, not in this walking life, I regard that a privilage. My beleives are never stagnant, I can never be wrong as I never regard myself as truely 'right', I can learn more about my beleifs, every single day, in the little things, in other's opinions, everythng has a metaphor, I'm not interested in litaral fact, I think the idea of wanting such in matters of god and faith is absurd. 




> But who am I to judge?


Human. :) 




> If I knew the mind of God, I wouldn't be talking it over with you guys, now would I?


You are the mind of god, and you are talking to god, remember? :D

----------


## Mycernius

I personally do not believe in the existance of God as exposed by various religious organisations. As I have an interest in religion and myths you can see how stories have been amended and changed through time to come up with the various religious myths we have now. The best example of this is Noah. The origin of this myth can be traced in to Assryian stories that have influened the jewish faith and eventually into christianity. I have no objections of people believing in God. If it gives them hope and happiness, who am I to say its wrong. Just don't push it on me.
A good site to see religious views on is www.religioustolerance.org

 :Cheers:  be  :Cool:

----------


## monrepo

None.

But I like the Greek gods and goddesses. For me, they are the most fascinating deities man has ever created.

----------


## Pararousia

Seems like to me that the people who say that they are their own gods and the atheists are all pretty much the same group.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

That's an interesting point of view Pararousia! I suppose for an atheist to be his own god, he would have to think of himself as the most superior being that exists, right? But I suspect that many atheists reject a belief in god because they deny that any being is inherently superior - indeed, that's at the root of my not believing in an omnipotent creator (not that I claim to be an atheist). But you're probably right that there are some atheists (a small minority I suspect) who are convinced of their own superiority.

----------


## Mycernius

I wonder if any atheist who believes they are God, vanishes in a puff of nonexistance?  :Laughing:

----------


## Buntaro

I believe in the gods (plural) that created Adam and Eve. 

http://www3.igalaxy.net/~nick/theoso...4.htm#creation

----------


## Pararousia

> That's an interesting point of view Pararousia! I suppose for an atheist to be his own god, he would have to think of himself as the most superior being that exists, right? But I suspect that many atheists reject a belief in god because they deny that any being is inherently superior - indeed, that's at the root of my not believing in an omnipotent creator (not that I claim to be an atheist). But you're probably right that there are some atheists (a small minority I suspect) who are convinced of their own superiority.


I wasn't really thinking superior as much as them thinking themselves more self-sufficient than they really are...goes back to the idea of the created (the pot) complaining to the Creator (the potter) about how it was made...*rambling here* Reminds me of a joke: Mankind and God got into a contest to see who could make a better man. So God stoops down to scoop up a handfull of dirt to begin. Then the committee members of mankind did the same thing. "Whoaaaa," says God, "make your own dirt."

----------


## kumo

> Seems like to me that the people who say that they are their own gods and the atheists are all pretty much the same group.


Yes, and people who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster and those who say they are the Loch Ness Monster are all pretty much the same group.
*ends sarcasm*

You might want to take a look at logical fallacies .  :Okashii:

----------


## Revenant

I'm starting to think that the question or whether a God or gods exist is irrelevant.

In some ways, they just seem avatars of our wonder, awe, feelings of peace, etc.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I wasn't really thinking superior as much as them thinking themselves more self-sufficient than they really are...goes back to the idea of the created (the pot) complaining to the Creator (the potter) about how it was made...*rambling here* Reminds me of a joke: Mankind and God got into a contest to see who could make a better man. So God stoops down to scoop up a handfull of dirt to begin. Then the committee members of mankind did the same thing. "Whoaaaa," says God, "make your own dirt."


Actually, that's one of the reasons I don't believe god created us. Sometimes when I feel crappy I just can't accept that I could have been designed this way. But I can easily see the evolutionary advantages for those crappy feelings!

----------


## kumo

> I wasn't really thinking superior as much as them thinking themselves more self-sufficient than they really are...goes back to the idea of the created (the pot) complaining to the Creator (the potter) about how it was made...


Could you please explain how could someone possibly complain about something they don't believe to exist in the first place?

----------


## Pararousia

> Actually, that's one of the reasons I don't believe god created us. Sometimes when I feel crappy I just can't accept that I could have been designed this way. But I can easily see the evolutionary advantages for those crappy feelings!


Well...Adam and Eve were made perfect and since then there's been a whole lot of corruption that has entered into our gene pool. Hence, crappyness.

----------


## Mars Man

Pararousia, how is it that you know that Adam and Eve were made perfect, much more, were even real, single individuals?  :Okashii: 

I had 'posted' here yesterday, but it seems not to have made it; anyway my vote was in the 'I don't know, can't say at the moment' area.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Well...Adam and Eve were made perfect and since then there's been a whole lot of corruption that has entered into our gene pool. Hence, crappyness.


Where did that corruption come from? How could a perfect designer make anything corruptible?

----------


## Mycernius

> Well...Adam and Eve were made perfect and since then there's been a whole lot of corruption that has entered into our gene pool. Hence, crappyness.


It's all this inbreeding. Where's my Banjo?  :Nuts:

----------


## WindCatcher

The curruption came from Satan. The book of Ezekiel talks about it in chapter 28. Satan basically took the right for humans to rule over the earth. Now he rules the earth with all kinds of bad things. A sinful human nature is one of the curses in the world, the biggest curse of all.

----------


## Kinsao

It's interesting to see that six of us on this forum _are_ God. Hey, step forward and battle it out!  :Yeahh:

----------


## Mycernius

> It's interesting to see that six of us on this forum _are_ God. Hey, step forward and battle it out!


I almost did, but then realised that I would have to deny my own existance and dissappear in a puff of logic. Any lightning bolts hurt my hands after prolonged use. Should put a warning on boxes of prepacked lightning bolts.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> The curruption came from Satan. The book of Ezekiel talks about it in chapter 28. Satan basically took the right for humans to rule over the earth. Now he rules the earth with all kinds of bad things. A sinful human nature is one of the curses in the world, the biggest curse of all.


I don't see it. Lucifer refused to unquestioningly do as he was told and decided to think for himself and encourage others to do likewise. I have always struggled to see what is so wrong in that.

----------


## Mycernius

The Devil is a Christian created myth. It doesn't exist is traditional Jewish teachings. The fall and lucifers rebellion in heaven are found in the NT, a Christian document. The OT is Jewish, any reference to Satan there is to an angel, not evil being.

----------


## WindCatcher

It is not a myth though saying that won't make you believe it, which is another issue. One of major reasons people do not believe God is the ignorance of Satan.

Knowing who Satan really is and what he really does leads to the desire and thrist to be saved. It's easy to say a myth to close the case for sure though. By the way, it would be helpful to provide the verse if you know any to support your idea.

----------


## Revenant

Job speaks of Satan, but what does Satan do? Does he not tempt people? What are temptations? They are impulses to do what one knows to be wrong. When people feel dislike for someone (intensified becomes hatred), do they simply think, 'this is the devil, I'll just tell him to go away'? 

The best approach to me seems a simple change of perspective, through a few simple questions. Does this person actually deserve my negative feelings? What is good about this person? Do *I* actually want to feel negative feelings (anger, irritation, dislike, etc) everytime I think of that person? 

These kind of questions asked with intensity will do well in 'rewiring' the perceptions that bring negative feelings. It is after all our negative feelings that cause us to bring some sort of unnecessary suffering to others.

----------


## Mycernius

> It is not a myth though saying that won't make you believe it, which is another issue. One of major reasons people do not believe God is the ignorance of Satan.
> 
> Knowing who Satan really is and what he really does leads to the desire and thrist to be saved. It's easy to say a myth to close the case for sure though. By the way, it would be helpful to provide the verse if you know any to support your idea.


Verses: The entire OT. It is a Jewish document and doesn't make Satan to be an evil force. The only time it is mentioned is in Job as an Angel, not the Devil. Christians might interpret various passages as this show Satan at work, but the Devil, or his many names, are not referred to anywhere in the OT. The book of Revelations is the real source of many myths of hell and the Devil. He is also mentioned in the Gospels as the tempter of Christ. All in the NT, which is a Christian document. The idea of Satan was then carried into the next Abrahamic religion that came along, which is Islam. Many names that Christians give to Satan are in fact Jewish in origin and refer to demons from Jewish myth.
Note: I use the word myth for various Christian, Islamic and Jewish texts because IMO that is what they are. If Christianity had never lasted past its first century or so and the Roman Mythology had remained dominant then all the texts on Jesus and his miracles would been seen as myth and Roman mythology as a religion.
There is a thread on this subject http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19077

----------


## WindCatcher

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." Job 1:6,7

Where does it say Angel?

Actually Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon says 

superhuman adversary

1. Satan (as noun)

----------


## Mycernius

Actually Satan is refered to an angel from Christian mytholgy, my mistake.
Satan from Jewish lore comes from Yezer Ha-Ra meaning evil inclination and functions within man as Ha-Satan , which you pointed out, means the adversary. Yezer Ha-Ra is part of human nature, not an embodiment of evil. Almost like the bad side of your mind.
I came across this if you're interested:
Medieavel scholars placed seven fallen angels with the seven deadly sins
1. Pride - Lucifer
2. Avarice - Mammon
3. Lust - Asmodeus
4. Envy - Leviathan
5. Gluttony - Beelzebub
6. Anger - Satan
7. Sloth - Belphegor

----------


## Mars Man

Talking about resurrections. . . this thread just seemed to pop up out of nowhere one day and caught my eye. I was surprized, when looking a bit closer, that it had had so many pages, when, for all I had guessed at the time, it had just been started by Mycernius recently. (early Oct.) Then, when opening it, found that it actually had been started last year, but that someone had just posted on it; and like all good little threads should do, it jumped up to the top of the list after having been posted on. Nice little thread. 

Now I am surprize again to find it so active as it has been on this very day--Oct. 22, 2005 !! WOW !! And there have been some good posts here, a lot of good points and information--and now I think I'd like to jump in a bit, if I may. 

*Satan* 
Well, as far as I have seen, the very first occurence of this word comes at Numbers 22:32 where we find:
_". . .rigauliyam hibeh anokhya yitsa'tyi lisatan. . ."_ BHK or, in the LXX, _". . .kai idou eyo ekselthon eis diabolen sou, . . . "_ The better translation of the word _'satan'_ in Hebrew, is resistor--that's exactly what that tale is saying that angel of YHWH (_mali'akhi yehwah_) did; resist Balaam's path. The Greek rendering gives _diabolen_ which would have the sense of 'slanderer'. In this case the Greek translation could be said to be loose, perhaps. It is clear, however, without any doubt that this Hebrew term is being applied to one of YHWH's messengers. At 2 Samuel 19:22 (BHK; 19:23) Hebrew has _"lisatan"_ (that _"li"_ is a preposition-like particle similar to 'to'--become to satan) where the Greek has _". . .ginesthe moi symeron eis epiboulon. . ."_ . . .(you [pl]) are becoming (of) me today into plot (against one). . . Here again the Hebrew _'satan'_ is used towards the action of resisting someone. It is, as WindCatcher pointed out, a common noun. At 1 Kings 5:4 (BHK 5:18) it is used in reference to enemies. The LXX uses _"epiboulis"_ here again. 

Then suddenly, in the work carrying the title JOB, (a much older loan to the Jewish scrolls than that of Samuel or Kings or those in that area) we find _" hasatan "_ ( the _'ha'_ is the definite article and, somewhat like English, points to _the_ one--of whatever the class may be.) Of course in this presentation, _hasatan_ is a son of YHWH. The LXX gives _'diabolos'_ at verse six, and forms of it as the story goes on. 

In all the later Jewish writings that made the Palestinian Canon, there is no usage of this word nor idea that conforms to the usage in Job. That later works made use of the idea which became the norm for the Christian works of the first century, is, of course a given. 

Again, as discussion is going on elsewhere on such matters, and details can be checked there, it suffices here just to mention that this later model of "Satan" can be no more reliable, nor literal than the "God" model presented in such old religious concepts.

But I know that this thread has been resurrected. . . there's no mistake there.
See you kind folks later on !! I always enjoy reading the research done !!  :Wavey:

----------


## WindCatcher

> Yezer Ha-Ra is part of human nature, not an embodiment of evil. Almost like the bad side of your mind.


I agree in a sense that Satan himself is the origin of sin, influencing the humanity today. That's why any human has this nature to fall and sin. However, he is not just the bad influence in our minds. He exists as a spirit.
(Strong's Number for Satan is 07854 if you have a lexicon, you may want to check it. The exact word is used 23 times in the Bible, in the OT.)

It's understandable for those who don't know to think Satan as a mere theology, myth, idea, human imagination, theory, or whatever other terms people choose to use. 

But just like God is as real as anyone, not some sort of invisible high power, so is Satan. Being able to know spiritual reality is usually based on its experiences. Otherwise, I don't see how a person can believe such things. Have you met or heard of people who are possessed by a spirit? It is not about movies, nor psychological disorders. Such things happen still today. You can read about deliverances in the Bible. Jesus and apostles casted out demons out of people. Demons are also in the OT. 




> I came across this if you're interested:
> Medieavel scholars placed seven fallen angels with the seven deadly sins
> 1. Pride - Lucifer
> 2. Avarice - Mammon
> 3. Lust - Asmodeus
> 4. Envy - Leviathan
> 5. Gluttony - Beelzebub
> 6. Anger - Satan
> 7. Sloth - Belphegor


I don't recognize Asmodeus and Belphegor but the rest are in the Bible. Thanks for this info. I like the list starts with pride, the biggest sin and the very thing destroyed Lucifer.

This reminded me of a scripture in Proverbs that goes;

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

----------


## Mycernius

Been searching for Belphegor and came up with this



> In demonology, Belphegor (or Beelphegor) is a demon who helps people to make discoveries. He seduces people by suggesting to them ingenious inventions that will make them rich. According to some 16th century demonologists his power is stronger in April. Bishop and witch-hunter Peter Binsfeld believed that Belphegor tempts by means of laziness.
> 
> Originally the Assyrian form of 'Baal-Peor', the Moabitish god to whom the Israelites became attached in Shittim (Numbers 25:3), which was associated with licentiousness and orgies, and it was worshipped in the form of a phallus.
> 
> As a demon, he is described in Kabbalistic writings as the "disputer", an enemy of the sixth Sephiroth "beauty." When summoned, he can grant riches, the power of discovery and ingenious invention. His role as a demon was to sow discord among men and seduce them to evil through the apportionment of wealth. He is difficult to conjure, perhaps because his sacrificial offering is excrement.
> 
> Belphegor (Lord of the Opening) was pictured in two quite different fashions — as a beautiful naked woman and as a monstrous, bearded demon with a open mouth, horns, and sharply pointed nails. According to De Plancy's 'Dictionnaire Infernal', he was Hell's ambassador to France. Belphegor also figures in Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and in Victor Hugo's 'The Toilers of the Sea'.
> 
> According to legend, Belphegor was sent from Hell by Lucifer to find out if there really was such a thing on earth as married happiness. Rumor of such had reached the demons but they knew that people were not designed to live in harmony. Belphegor's experiences in the world soon convinced him that the rumor was groundless. The story is found in various works of early modern literature, hence the use of the name to apply to a misanthrope or a licentious person


From Wikipedia

and for Asmodeus:



> An evil spirit. He appears in the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Although he is described in later literature as the king of demons, in Jewish folklore he is mischievous and lively, a figure of fun and often a friend to people. He is said to disturb marital happiness, and it was Asmodeus who strangled the seven husbands of Sara during her wedding-night. 
> 
> Asmodeus originated from the ancient Persian demon Aesma Daeva.


Taken from http://www.pantheon.org/
Hope this helps

BTW: God isn't real to me as much as the Devil, Satan or whatever you wish to call it is. You might gather from various quotes and posts that I do not believe in God or Gods

----------


## WindCatcher

Many don't believe like you. So you are in the majority. I didn't used to believe in them, either. Thanks for the research though. I didn't know Beelphegor was from Baal, which I know of.

----------


## Shirahime

I belive there's one almighty god that exist and create the universe,,,

but still we can't judge someone will be doomed because he/she doesn't believe in god,,
god is "The Utterly Just",,,god has it's own way to judge us,,

----------


## Pararousia

> Could you please explain how could someone possibly complain about something they don't believe to exist in the first place?


Kumo, Good question, but as you have probably noticed, there's several threads in the forum where people who are atheists are debating about God's existence. Kind of like me debating about the existence of elves (no offence to the Irish meant). If I were atheist and someone wanted to debate with me about the subject, I would yawn and roll over or something.




> Pararousia, how is it that you know that Adam and Eve were made perfect, much more, were even real, single individuals?


Because God created them in the beginning in His own image, therefore, perfect. History is downhill from there.




> Where did that corruption come from? How could a perfect designer make anything corruptible?


My hands are too cold for a lengthy reply, and someone else has already answered this as well, but Man was created with a will to choose right from wrong. When he (or we) choose wrong, we bear the consequences of that decision. 

Sin (wrong) corrupted Man's nature, much like a virus or a bad gene. It passed from that couple to their children and their children, etc. Hey, I wish it hadn't happened that way too, but the evidence of corruption is everywhere around us and in us. Had Adam and Eve not fallen, one of the rest of us would have eventually, I'm sure. Gives us someone to blame for our bad teeth or hair  :Laughing:

----------


## kumo

> Kumo, Good question, but as you have probably noticed, there's several threads in the forum where people who are atheists are debating about God's existence. Kind of like me debating about the existence of elves (no offence to the Irish meant). If I were atheist and someone wanted to debate with me about the subject, I would yawn and roll over or something.


Atheism is important because theism is important. People who believe in elves are not the majority of the population, they don't dominate our government and society with their absurd and illogical ideas nor do their believes represent a threat to society's development and own survival. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for theists. 

Of course, the less important theism becomes the less reason we have to debate about god (e.g. Europe), but we still live in highly theistics societies , so active atheism is important as a couterbalance for theism.




> Because God created them in the beginning in His own image, therefore, perfect. History is downhill from there.


A bit of circular reasoning we have here, heh  :Okashii:  




> My hands are too cold for a lengthy reply, and someone else has already answered this as well, but Man was created with a will to choose right from wrong. When he (or we) choose wrong, we bear the consequences of that decision.


That is absurd. If god is omniscient he would know the exact consequence of his actions (creating man), if he created us knowing we would end up suffering he can't be omnibenevolent. Either we don't possess free will and god is a sadist or we have free will and there's no god. Even if the first case were to be true, I think it would be quite pathetic to submit oneself to such a vile being.

----------


## Pararousia

Kumo, I was only answering your question to begin with, but your later comments represent a question I've heard before here: "If god is omniscient he would know the exact consequence of his actions (creating man), if he created us knowing we would end up suffering he can't be omnibenevolent. Either we don't possess free will and god is a sadistic or we have free will and there's no god." And my hands have warmed up a bit.

Don't confuse God's foreknowledge with His foreordination. The fact that God foreknows a thing makes that thing certain but not necessary. His foreordination is based upon His foreknowledge. The actions of men are considered certain but not necessary by reason of the divine foreknowledge.

God has certain moral attributes, such as holiness. Holiness is perhaps the foremost attribute that has been declared by those who have caught glimpses of Him through visions, etc. I personally believe that one cause of atheism is man's refusal to view himself as a fallen creature--denial in the nth degree, you might say, the great sin of pride, which caused Satan himself to fall. 

When I read your word "omnibenevolent", I paused, because while God is a good(moral attribute) God , He is also a just(moral attribute) God. He cannot allow anything which violates His character. As Creator of all, He has the sole right to choose whom He will be good towards: those who keep His righteous commandments. Those who refuse to keep His commands receive His just judgement. "Thou, O Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy to all them that call upon thee." (Ps. 86:5) "He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." See even the unrepentant and hard-hearted are recipients of God's mercy.

He created us all knowing that a few would obey and most would not. He chose to create us anyway. He chose to _make a way_ so that those who choose to follow Him could also be made righteous. This goes back to His attribute of holiness. You see, at just the right time in God's redemptive PLAN, Christ died for the ungodly (all of us). Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man, someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrated His own love for us all in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us, to make a way to bring us back to Him, to make us righteous before Him, to atone for our sins.

He didn't create us to _suffer_, as you seemed to suggest, but to worship Him. I don't know if you have children, but a parent tells a child, for example, not to touch the pot on the stove. The child does and gets burned. Did the parent cause the child suffering? No. Did the child disobey and reap the consequences of its actions? Yes. So have we (humankind). All the suffering I see in the world has come about because of the curse of sin--the consequences of sin. Whether it's a war or a child born with a defect. It's all the result of sin's curse in this world we live. 

Thanks be unto God for a Savior!

----------


## kumo

> He created us all knowing that a few would obey and most would not. He chose to create us anyway. He chose to make a way so that those who choose to follow Him could also be made righteous. This goes back to His attribute of holiness.


Not everyone on this planet knows about god or "the way to salvation". Do you think someone born in a isolated island deserves eternal torture in hell even when he couldn't possibly know what "god" means in the first place?

If god knew some people would not obey resulting in their suffering, there would be no reason to create anything at all in the first place, even because a supposedly perfect being should have no needs (as spreading love to something that didn't even exist yet).




> You see, at just the right time in God's redemptive PLAN, Christ died for the ungodly (all of us). Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man, someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrated His own love for us all in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us, to make a way to bring us back to Him, to make us righteous before Him, to atone for our sins.


I've always wondered, wouldn't that means that everyone who was born before Jesus is now being tortured in hell for eternity simply because they were born in the wrong epoch? That doesn't seem benevolent or fair at all. (assuming there's a god just for the sake of argument)

One could also argue about the existence of hell; the purpose of punishment is to educate someone so that he/she can improve, but eternal punishment is no more than a cruel and sadistic torture and serves no purpose. No benevolent being would even consider such a thing.




> He didn't create us to suffer, as you seemed to suggest, but to worship Him. I don't know if you have children, but a parent tells a child, for example, not to touch the pot on the stove. The child does and gets burned. Did the parent cause the child suffering? No. Did the child disobey and reap the consequences of its actions? Yes. So have we (humankind). All the suffering I see in the world has come about because of the curse of sin--the consequences of sin. Whether it's a war or a child born with a defect. It's all the result of sin's curse in this world we live.


Do you seriously think all suffering that has ever happened was deserved? Every children born with a defect, everyone that died in a war or natural disaster deserved it? You can't even argue about any "afterlife reward" since apparently it's impossible for anyone to be "sinless" as we are born with it before we can do anything (very fair, indeed...).

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Don't confuse God's foreknowledge with His foreordination. The fact that God foreknows a thing makes that thing certain but not necessary. His foreordination is based upon His foreknowledge. The actions of men are considered certain but not necessary by reason of the divine foreknowledge.


I don't see the difference between 'certain' and 'necessary'. In my understanding if something is 'certain' the probability of its happening is 100% - i.e. it is 'necessarily occurring'.


> I personally believe that one cause of atheism is man's refusal to view himself as a fallen creature--denial in the nth degree, you might say, the great sin of pride, which caused Satan himself to fall.


I'd say that's spot on. I think many atheists (while obviously viewing the Adam and Eve episode as a myth) think there's nothing wrong with what Eve did - it's natural for us to rebel against absolute authority. That's how progress is made.


> I don't know if you have children, but a parent tells a child, for example, not to touch the pot on the stove. The child does and gets burned. Did the parent cause the child suffering? No. Did the child disobey and reap the consequences of its actions? Yes.


In my view a good parent would explain to the child why it mustn't touch the stove. The child is then less likely to disobey, but if he still does, he will learn by his mistake, and experience is the best way to learn, IMO. As far as I know, God never explained to Adam and Eve why they must obey. If he'd given them a good reason they might have understood.


> All the suffering I see in the world has come about because of the curse of sin--the consequences of sin. Whether it's a war or a child born with a defect. It's all the result of sin's curse in this world we live.


I find that statement offensive. I don't like the word 'defect' for a start. Congenitally disabled children are not defective, like some broken appliance. And I can't stand the idea that a disabled person is being punished. I find the suggestion morally repugnant. I think it's much healthier and more constructive to consider that disabled people exist because natural selection and medical science make it possible. If you want to find a moral reason, why not look at the example disabled people can give us of triumph over adversity?




> I've always wondered, wouldn't that means that everyone who was born before Jesus is now being tortured in hell for eternity simply because they were born in the wrong epoch? That doesn't seem benevolent or fair at all. (assuming there's a god just for the sake of argument)


Have you read the Divine Comedy? In that, the righteous before Christ are offered posthumous baptism, 'cos if they'd been born later they would have recognised the truth! I think some Christians take it literally too.


> One could also argue about the existence of hell; the purpose of punishment is to educate someone so that he/she can improve, but eternal punishment is no more than a cruel and sadistic torture and serves no purpose. No benevolent being would even consider such a thing.


I completely agree. That's one of the many (many, many) things that made me reject Christianity.

----------


## Mycernius

Who said God is a benevolent being? The God of the OT can be a very cruel God against those who don't follow it. It suffers from vanity: Exodus 22:20 _Whoever sacrifices to any God, other than the Lord alone,shall be devoted to destruction_; Exodus 20:5 _You shall not bow down or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God._ Partial to the odd bit of Genocide, read Judges and Kings for the wars of Jewish conquest. Lots of slaughter all the people of the town. The God portrayed in the NT is slightly better. More love and forgivness than fire, brimstone and punishment

----------


## No-name

Carrot and a stick?

----------


## Mycernius

> Carrot and a stick?


Which do you prefer?

----------


## No-name

Chocolate.

----------


## Mars Man

Awhhhh...come on now guys, you're just messing with us. We all know that what comes on a stick, and is edible, and is sweet, is a roasted marshmellow !!

----------


## No-name

LOL (pictures God with a long white beard and a tremendous marshmallow on a gigantic stick.)

----------


## Elizabeth van Kampen

I am a Catholic. But to me Nature is my God.
I love the Oceans, the trees, the mountains, the smile on the face of a baby, the colours of the flowers, the blue sky ( not often in Holland) the wonderful landscapes, the colourful birds. I admire the thunderstorms ( from far away), the wild animals, or the high sea waves.
I love the sounds that bring me beautiful music

I love what Nature brings me on my plate, and I love CHOCOLATE.

----------


## moffeltoff

I do believe "God" exists and I think he isnt a judge or doesnt interfer ,I think he just sets our spectrum of options to choose from.

----------


## Jack

"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

----------


## Japanimaniac

Very well put, Jack. Or...whoever said that.  :Cool:

----------


## himagain

The "Big Bang" is God. That is how everything was created.

----------


## Maciamo

> The "Big Bang" is God. That is how everything was created.


Apparently I am one of the few Atheists who believe that the Big Bang was only the start of our microcosm* in the infinity of the Universe. For me the Big Bang was no more the beginning of the Universe than the fission of an atom. It was just an explosion on a different scale.

* _micro_cosm because everything is tiny compared to infinity. From this point of view the only macrocosm that exists is the whole Universe itself.

----------


## Kardu

> The "Big Bang" is God. That is how everything was created.


Did the Big Bang have a cause? :)

----------


## Chevalier

I am new member and excuse me if I'm saying this,
but isn't this a philosophy section of forum? shouldn't people philosophize instead of ... well we need some mods around to standardize the place...

anyway, I believe in god as whole.
actually instead that selfish genes theory I believe in nature as producers of us for guarding and spreading it.
think! we are evolved through Millenniums, from apes, from mammals.
we are bound by limits earth, or precisely nature, have put on us. we need oxygen, water and food to live. almost all of them can only be found in what nature's products. nature itself is seem like a living whole organism.
we are chosen one... by nature. evolved, given intellect, thus with it free will.
what's was purpose of nature? to be its wardens.
to protect it: once we know that no matter how advanced we become we're still vulnerable to it, we will realize that nature is our god.
god is nature, nature is god. perhaps god is lot more "whole"-er than that, a cosmos itself, yet for understanding it this would suffice.
god itself is an outer and last layer of sphere, we can only a one level layer above named nature.
then we would not make our technologies hurt nature, instead we try to be greener, more wary of negative impacts of our products, since we know without it there is no life.
not only we guard, but we are like bees, can spread it to other planets.
yes, plant seeds, make nature grow on with us anywhere, we are tied to together.
though we are still far away from understanding required to reach such point.
we are still at dark age of the "protection" section. we are learning that our negative activities (in environmental sense) have consequences for nature.
in fact, for us, if we want to survive...for nature, it's nothing, nothing changes, there would be period of recovering for earth -what we call Apocalypse for ourselves- it can even make another thing evolve and take us place, or we become tougher by withstanding that period and came off even stronger, even more suitable wardens for nature.

there's still lot left unsaid, hope I brought some originality to thread for a philosophical section.

----------


## zanipolo

The question should be .........How many gods are there.
-If there is only one God, then all religions pray to that one God and so its just plain stupidy that people change religions. Basically anyone who changes religion , does not know religion.

-If there is more than one God, then the ancients ( Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norse etc etc ) where correct and then that means modern religion is a farce.

take your pick

----------


## Boss

You resurrected an ancient thread, Chevalier, but whatever.

When people think of "God" they think of the Abrahamic God - the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Now that God, I think, is very unlikely to exist (this is a huge issue but I'm happy to say why if asked). And in that sense, I'm an atheist.

But God, in some other abstract way, may or may not exist. I don't know. Maybe there really exists a kind of a spaghetti monster. In that sense, I am an agnostic though, it should be noted, in that sense I'm agnostic about everything (fairies, orcs, etc).

----------


## Riccardo

I think that "God does not exist" and "or it is irrelevant" shouldn't stay in the same answer.

----------


## Riccardo

Anyhow I'm a non-conventional atheist.

I mean that the question is wrong. It shouldn't be "Does God exist or not?" or "In what God do you believe?", but the most correct and precise one should be: "is God a human idea?".
I think yes. I think that God is something "created by men for men". That is because we have to find a sense to everything, expecially our existence. It's shared and "more confortable" an idea of a beginning and an end, of a creation, of a sense.
Everybody ask what there will be after death, but what about before birth? I think the human mind is too linear and too unable to understand the possibility of an universe without sense, beginning and end. Just existence and transformation. That's why God and more widely spirituality is something we accept as a possibility in order to exorcise our doubts. Because it is something that combines the whole mankind.
If you believe in something, there's no doubt that this perspective is something that unifies everybody, believers and non-believers. That's why I think it's a concept created by humans for humans. Because only humans have this necessity, as much as we know.
I think that the endless universe may have endless form of existences, lifes, thoughts, etc. that a simple and a just human God is not possible. If we don't accept that God is a human concept than the question will always be open and faith will dominate on reason. If we think that God is something too big for us I think we are wrong in the perspective of the discussion.

----------


## LeBrok

Does Universe need sense of existence? Can't it just be? Same with life and human existence. Maybe we just live without a reason, trapped in constant recycling of what we call life, to make next generation, next generation, next generation, etc.
Till humans developed nervous system (brain) to ask existential questions, for 5 billions years nobody on this planet cared if god or gods existed, or why universe exists. Looks like this is the norm, and possibly everything exists without a reason, purpose, goal or need. It's just happened.

----------


## Amory Blaine

Well, my religion is exceedingly complicated. I was raised Christian (Methodist), then I was atheist, and now I'm neither. I would say I switch between atheist, agnostic and something that is closest to Platonic realism which I call Refinement...it just depends. Agnostic is usually what I tell people, but I'm far more ambivalent in regard to religion than that term implies. Its almost like Orwell's doublethink.

----------


## Carlos

I can not vote no choice, I believe that God is a woman.

----------


## Chevalier

> *I think the human mind is too linear and too unable to understand the possibility of an universe without sense, beginning and end.* Just existence and transformation. That's why God and more widely spirituality is something we accept as a possibility in order to exorcise our doubts. Because it is something that combines the whole mankind.


what you said can be used against your saying;
so isn't that also indicates that we are too far away from understanding god?
we can't really say anything about what god exactly IS. we can't point, "hey! there is the god! look over there." as we can't as well say exactly there isn't any god cause that requires proof too.
so we can't neither say there is and isn't any god.
the problem is, questions emphasizes directly/indirectly on existence of god. if god creates, so isn't existence is a concept made from god? so god is chained by "existence"? (...or better, even than god topic, isn't "existence" a human idea?)
how narrow our views are, god always thought as a person, as a king of all kings, as someone who happened to be first exist in world before anyone... but no one says it is perhaps collective unconsciousness (or better more precisely, conscious whole intelligence).
haven't heard of possible worlds? worlds! each world with their own logic. we can see lots of possibilities, beyond our comprehension. 
we humans don't know anything ourselves yet, not the world nor universe...yet we easily judge about something greater than us. think, can a 4 year old infant judge his parents well? (assuming his parents are logical, compassionate people)




> That's why I think it's a concept created by humans for humans. Because* only humans have this necessity*, as much as we know.


because,as you said yourself, we are the *only creature* on earth who can *think*!





> Till humans developed nervous system (brain) to ask existential questions, for 5 billions years nobody on this planet cared if god or gods existed, or why universe exists. Looks like this is the norm, and possibly everything exists without a reason, purpose, goal or need. It's just happened.


why is it that someone who believes should provide evidence?
tell me, why do you believe world made pointless? just why? assertion doesn't do any good.
and believers doesn't say that they know everything so to be get bombarded by critiques to be proved otherwise; they just believe in god, it do not requires much intelligence, yet it is personal journey for anyone to understand god, since god is for everyone.
do you think god is a king? what? who gives orders, looks down on us? I think not. since we assume he is wisest, and therefore most compassionate (by Socrates philosophy puts virtue and knowledge are one; thank japs for their proverb as it says "virtue and knowledge are like two wheels of a cart.") ...so... imagine....would you portray compassionate as someone who gives no attention, no love, no care about you? since its our creator isn't it capable of look for us all? if you say about "evils" in this world, we already know it's from human mind, and world don't really see "evil" for itself.
but does that mean we should deny "evil"??? no, we are emotional creatures and emotions thought to be one of the greatest achievement of evolution life on earth has gone through. we know "evil" hurts us, and we know there is NO ESCAPING from emotions, in fact, ALL our judgment and reasoning based on emotions.
that's why Socrates says ethics should be our main concern.
and we know there isn't "ethic" out there, but it's from humans, and still most necessary thing we need nowadays.
so same goes with god, if we believe that god is of human mind.



and they *didn't cared* because they *couldn't think back then*! answered by your own statement.

and this also means why should we compare ourselves to animals? so animals don't debate about gods (if they could "debate" about anything at all!!!) so we must? so do we also compare other aspects with animals? isn't naming people after animals taboo and negative? so do we promote some male people act as "alpha"s and most of our female bow before them??? is this what human being want? I think not.





> I can not vote no choice, I believe that God is a woman.


though you said it for fun, you, by coincidence, hit on the spot. anyone can think of god as anything as they still know and aware that god isn't limited by anything.
why not? it's of literature. it helps being emotionally closer to it. and I'm sure SHE wouldn't mind...I thought of it as a woman once.


debates like this goes on and on in internet, and my answers can't never satisfy anybody that I know.
people still believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, unless words came from their on mind or they are truth seeker and so sensitive to it that they can sense words of wisdom to be convinced.

truly, look around ourselves.
we humans are suspect to err and do it all the times. there isn't any perfection in us but ... why don't people use the same words they use against unfathomable god on themselves too?

isn't most of our miseries because of our own negative minds? why does world seems purposeless when exactly it is you who sees life pointless. and in most of our debates we are biased and backgrounds do really matter.
someone who hasn't been within religion doesn't know anything about it and difference of religion should be looked as difference of race looked upon.

religions, all, meant to do us good, yet, some vicious people abused them...same goes with politics, economy and such. isn't economy making wars today like religion did in past?
there would be always religion. there is no reasons to think idealistic, so instead of killing what can not be killed, let's try to rationalize our way and give better meaning out of it.

I'm not religious, mind you. religious people call me atheist for my radical belief because I deal with philosophy of religion (the real business and core inside of it) instead of traditions of religion (which is superficial and influenced by cultures of believers).... same goes with atheists, they call me religious because I believe in god, yet they haven't been deep to religion themselves to get exactly what I am into.

I said those above so you can get some background about me. this is important on seeing things through another perspective and getting whole points. it's base of empathy, rationality and the whole main thing required in today world.
...if only just humans could try to understand each other! 

sorry for some typos, since I'm not regular member I can't edit anything. in other words, your concerns should be on context not words.
and I would like to see people philosophize in real sense in this thread, not just give opinion without good reason. (perhaps I should have joined a philosophy forum?... I really need a good talker here)

----------


## Carlos

> Chevalier
> 
> _
>  Originally Posted by Carlos 
> I can not vote no choice, I believe that God is a woman.
> 
> _
> 
> though you said it for fun, you, by coincidence, hit on the spot. anyone can think of god as anything as they still know and aware that god isn't limited by anything.
> why not? it's of literature. it helps being emotionally closer to it. and I'm sure SHE wouldn't mind...I thought of it as a woman once.



I'm serious, I have a Goddess. God is a woman, I did not know it until I started writing in a writing workshop as a teenager and made the statement after the years ended in another course of screenwriting and there on my first screenplay to be the first own things really are coming when God was a character out openly and a woman, all this was subconsciously because I realized years later the meaning.

Now I devote myself to photography and rose at any time, if not out already and I still have not noticed, I'm sure she is a woman.

----------


## Yetos

God is the ultimate that a human can do in his life,
God has humans face and body,
god has a job,
and protects its job, its family, and his supporters,

I like Poseidon Zeus and Hephastθs (Ποσειδων, Ζευ-Διας Ηφαιστος) due to the studies and the life i choose to make.

----------


## moogspaceport

I don't know if there are any gods, but I strongly suspect there aren't any.

----------


## Hal Fao

I strongly believe in what I see/understand. None can make me believe in mistery.
If there's a God who created a foolish child like me, it's not my fault. It's HIS!

----------


## zanipolo

there is only one GOD...if you know about more, share, then we can follow the ancient roman or greek system

----------


## Kardu

> there is only one GOD...if you know about more, share, then we can follow the ancient roman or greek system


Why not Norse or Aztec :)

----------


## Yetos

> The question should be .........How many gods are there.
> -If there is only one God, then all religions pray to that one God and so its just plain stupidy that people change religions. Basically anyone who changes religion , does not know religion.
> 
> -If there is more than one God, then the ancients ( Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norse etc etc ) where correct and then that means modern religion is a farce.
> 
> take your pick


that is a good question, 
the answer is another question
what we mean by word God?

For example a Doctor in a modern primitive island and his nurse, like mother Terezza, could we take it as a God and its Saint? (Ασκληπιος and Ιασω)
the one who finds a cold fusion machine, can he be a god? or a priest of Ηφαιστος?

personally I think that some gods are creation of Guilds, and others invention of a rulling class to spread fear or to earn money.

----------


## Hal Fao

In Albanian: 
"Zot" means: 1- God; 2- Mr.; 3- Owner.
"Zonjë" means "Ms.";
"Zonë" means "occupation", "zone";
"Zanë" means "goddess" (it's a mythological character).
All these words derive from "Ze" = 1- begin; 2- occupy; 3- catch; 4- size (v); ["zënë" is the p.p. of "ze"/"zë"; In Gheg: "zanë"].
So, the meaning of "zot" (god) in Albanian is: 1- beginner; 2- occupier.

----------


## Twilight

I believe in God but I'm not really sure about Satan because my Step-Dad raised me in the Chinook philosophy and have not come across him and my Mom raised me Catholic, I also believe saints have made a controbutional part in our world history and human rights

----------


## Carlos

> I believe in God but I'm not really sure about Satan because my Step-Dad raised me in the Chinook philosophy and have not come across him and my Mom raised me Catholic, I also believe saints have made a controbutional part in our world history and human rights


The evil exists and is up to a court of ministers who are worse than Satan himself. But fear not, they can only access so you if you want. If you're beset and deceived Give them your body, but never surrender your soul to them, will be lost for eternity, and soon tire of your body, they want your soul.


No matter how you have educated your parents, that does not matter to the king of darkness, beware of arrival, is nearby.

----------


## adamo

Carlos you are one bizarre guy overall loll, I personally believe in science as the reason for our being, I don't believe in god I'm atheist as I've in terms of intelligence surpassed the point of believing in the bible or biblical stories or in one of many nonsensical religions ( Hindus believe in multiple gods, some of them being half-human half elephant, what rubbish) its all nonsense to me as once man surpassed the atmosphere and reached space....he finally realized that there is no heaven up there, up in the "clouds". planes are up there all day every day, did YOU see god or Jesus in his robes up there on a cloud? That's what I thought lol

----------


## Carlos

> Carlos you are one bizarre guy overall loll, I personally believe in science as the reason for our being, I don't believe in god I'm atheist as I've in terms of intelligence surpassed the point of believing in the bible or biblical stories or in one of many nonsensical religions ( Hindus believe in multiple gods, some of them being half-human half elephant, what rubbish) its all nonsense to me as once man surpassed the atmosphere and reached space....he finally realized that there is no heaven up there, up in the "clouds". planes are up there all day every day, did YOU see god or Jesus in his robes up there on a cloud? That's what I thought lol



Burn in hell and God will not hear your cries and pleas.

----------


## adamo

.......AHAHAH you are so weird Carlos....

----------


## Carlos

> .......AHAHAH you are so weird Carlos....



Rare is the world

----------


## adamo

Honestly, your English is beyond incomprehensible.

----------


## Coolboygcp

> well, if the worlds leading particle physisists cant explain why we are here, i refuse to believe that their is "no" reason. i have studied both sides of the story, science wants us to believe that first, there was nothing, surrounded by "nothingness", and then, a big bang, and "poomph" there waseverything. religion would have us believe that the universe as we know it was created by an all powerfull intellect beyond our grasp of realism.
> i dont buy the part about first there was nothing, and then there was everything. i think there is something much larger in the picture, and although i could never understand it, i have faith that we are not here for nothing. compare yourself to every other creature on earth. if you tell me we evolved from apes, thats fine, we probably did, but where did the apes come from, where did the one-celled organisms at the bottom of the ocean near the volcanic vents come from. if you are talking about christianity or catholocism my point is, the roman catholic church, has over the centuries done its best to turn tragedy into terror. and create a ruling class royal family. jerks. and re-write many chapters in the bible to their liking. many ppl who have never read a bible from front to back cannot in fairness speculate upon the motives, of the diety in question. like buddha said when asked about the "christ" figure in the east, he replied "how would i know, i wasnt there." the idea that everything we know came out of nowhere, (and im not talking about the big bang, im talking about why the big bang happened to begin with) is an even farther reach for me, than to believe that god created it. for instance, a lot of ppl believe in ghosts and magic. ive never seen a ghost, or any magic, but i believe they exist to some extent. over 80% of the world is religious, my point is, they are religious for a reason. i believe in both science and god. 
> i believe both of them have valid arguments. but i do not believe that science will ever provide us with a "why". i think that only god can tell us that, and science can only tell us "how". i do not believe in the conventional views of god, like i said, i think it an "it". but i do believe it exists. 
> 
> until maybe "aliens" show up and show us all how it happened, and im inclined to believe thats not so far off the chain either....hhmmmmmm


All I have to say is :78:

----------


## Coolboygcp

> Carlos you are one bizarre guy overall loll, I personally believe in science as the reason for our being, I don't believe in god I'm atheist as I've in terms of intelligence surpassed the point of believing in the bible or biblical stories or in one of many nonsensical religions ( Hindus believe in multiple gods, some of them being half-human half elephant, what rubbish) its all nonsense to me as once man surpassed the atmosphere and reached space....he finally realized that there is no heaven up there, up in the "clouds". planes are up there all day every day, did YOU see god or Jesus in his robes up there on a cloud? That's what I thought lol


 :Flamethrower: 
 :Uzi: 

Hindus do not believe in multiple gods. Hindus believe in one gods, and many avatars. Avatars are more similar to demigods or prophets than god(s).

Get your facts straight, and be informed.

----------


## Rethel

> I, myself, do not believe in God, but I believe that there is something bigger, unexplored, unknown; something, that comes after death. It might be a God. Or maybe not. I will see.


And if it is the God, then what? ;)
You belive that there is something,
so you know that he exist allready.

----------


## kyrani99

> You belive that there is something,
> so you know that he exist allready.


Belief in something is only agnostic.

----------


## LeBrok

> We *Humans have a definition* of something *we cannot define*,


You seem to have ability to amaze others...




> That is why we use the term of "religion"


Actually religion is defined and structured set of beliefs in supernatural. Term "spirituality" might be more fitting.




> We do not think of it thoroughly, so that is why we cannot know the answer.


 Many did, but I have a feeling you wouldn't like the answer. Let me present you my version:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...why-we-believe
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...r-spirituality

----------


## The_Lyonnist

I believe in one almighty God who created the Universe and judge our everyday life.

----------


## TDGBlitz08

I believe in multiple gods. But then my family, both sides, is old. Mum's side goes back to the 1400s and Dad's side goes back 1,200+ years. Mum's side is more devoted, however, she is herself is not a true believer herself [she is the sort to go to church cause it's expected, nothing else]... as is the case with most people who married into dad's family. Dad's family is all and out pagan. Not neo pagan, which is merely a remake done by people who still need to belong but want to be "different" [call it a different name all you like, it's still the bandwagon of a "standardized" religion], but as in dad's side of the family never lost our pre-Christian beliefs.

----------


## Sile

> I believe in multiple gods. But then my family, both sides, is old. Mum's side goes back to the 1400s and Dad's side goes back 1,200+ years. Mum's side is more devoted, however, she is herself is not a true believer herself [she is the sort to go to church cause it's expected, nothing else]... as is the case with most people who married into dad's family. Dad's family is all and out pagan. Not neo pagan, which is merely a remake done by people who still need to belong but want to be "different" [call it a different name all you like, it's still the bandwagon of a "standardized" religion], but as in dad's side of the family never lost our pre-Christian beliefs.


So you are saying that, with every religion there is a different God.?

I believe in only one GOD and that every religion be it from pagan stone-age to today prayed to that God.............which is why *one does not need a religion to pray to God.*

----------


## Petros Agapetos

I am an agnostic atheist about god claims that are not falsifiable, and a gnostic atheist for those who have already been falsified, for example the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur'an. I don't believe in the existence of the supernatural dimension. I don't think we are living in a celestial dictatorship, where a God watches your every move like big brother. That is just fantasy.

----------


## Rethel

> That is just fantasy.


Ok, so where are you/we came from, and why finite reality exists?

----------


## Petros Agapetos

> Ok, so where are you/we came from, and why finite reality exists?


I agree with you that the existence of our universe requires an explanation, and origin, but what makes you think that origin or cause or reason is God?
If you only answer "who created the Universe"' it may not occur to you that the true answer might not be in the form of a "who" but of a "what".

----------


## LeBrok

In past people wondered who makes the sun go around, who shoots lightning from clouds, or who made my child sick with a curse. Apparently it was all gods and bad spirits doing. 
Well, now we know the right answers thanks to science. The moral of the story is that, just because we still can't explain all the workings of universe it doesn't mean gods did it.

----------


## Sile

I believe God is female but I follow the Australian way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Australia

----------


## Rethel

> I agree with you that the existence of our universe requires an explanation, and origin, but what makes you think that origin or cause or reason is God?


Me.
I am living person, with reason, inteligence, and selfidentity,
so, the one who made me, have to be more inteligent, more
alive and more personal, than I am. 

More than that I am able to realize, that something exept
me exists, not only the material Universe, but am I able to
comprehence an idea that there is something beyond and
more powerfull than all power in whole Universe. I am also
able to understand, what is time, what is past, I am able
to abstractic thinking, I can undersdtand cause and effect,
and I can also get mathematical principles and probability;
something, what allready evolved apemen preset here too,
actualy can't, so thay have to belive in selfaliving stone,
becasue as animals, they cannot understand anything
beyond materia and can;t think abstracticly. 

My God, the Inteligent Creator made me able to got this,
but their godess a blind dumb Evolution made them unable.

It is such simple.




> If you only answer "who created the Universe"' it may not occur to you that the true answer might not be in the form of a "who" but of a "what".


The "Who" is a higher level of existence so, logically,
"what" cant made "Who", but "Who" can make "what".

----------


## LeBrok

> More than that I am able to realize, that something exept
> me exists, not only the material Universe, but am I able to
> comprehence an idea that there is something beyond and
> more powerfull than all power in whole Universe. I am also
> able to understand, what is time, what is past, I am able
> to abstractic thinking, I can undersdtand cause and effect,
> and I can also get mathematical principles and probability;
> something, what allready evolved apemen preset here too,
> actualy can't, so thay have to belive in selfaliving stone,
> ...


 Wow, you tricked us well.

----------


## Tomenable

This philosophical view best describes my beliefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism




> one does not need a religion to pray to God.


I totally agree with this. This is also why the principle of separation of church and state does not entail that there mustn't be any references to God in national constitutions or other legislative acts (like the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

----------


## LeBrok

> This philosophical view best describes my beliefs:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. This is also why the principle of separation of church and state does not entail that there mustn't be any references to God in national constitutions or other legislative acts (like the U.S. Declaration of Independence).


I hate that, no reference to spiritual entities of any kind should be allowed in constitution, national anthem or court processes.

----------


## Goga

I voted this: "_I believe in one God that created the Universe, but does not interefere with our lives or judge us_"

I don't pray, I don't visit any religious temples, I don't read any religious texts and I don't like to talk about the religion, because it is not part of my 'duty', I'm not a priest. But I do believe in my God. I'm a very religious person. I don't fear God, but I love God because God created life.

We don't like to harm innocent people, because we believe in karma, this life or an after life: good thoughts, good words, good deeds.


According to my native Iranian/Aryan religion God created the 7 angels, and the chief of those 7 angles, Tawuse Melek (peacock angel), is the ruler of our planet Earth. Tawuse Melek punishes anybody who is harmimg his people, the children of God, or simply the Ezdi Kurds.

----------


## Goga

Do you agree with this ???


*Soul vs. spirit*


" _The soul and the spirit are connected, but separable (Hebrews 4:12). The soul is the essence of humanity's being; it is who we are. The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God.

The spirit is the element in humanity which gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God.

The word 'soul' can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls. In its most basic sense, the word 'soul' means 'life.'_ "

https://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

----------


## Joey D

I worship at the altar of rock and roll.

----------


## Rethel

> This philosophical view best describes my beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism


Ok, so if you agnosticly agknowlege God's existence, then what, if he
has some standarts, and coincidently (but quite purpously seriously
speaking) informs us in written form about them, and he is going to
treat us as responsible informed people according to his standarts?

----------


## Rethel

> I hate that, no reference to spiritual entities of any kind should be allowed in constitution, national anthem or court processes.


But refference to selfalived stone, genues monkey and
islamic "merits" should be praise day and night not only
in documents, but everywhere...

----------


## Seanp

I think God is an outdated word, and there are better ways to describe the power and intelligence behind physical substances. Books such as the bible were written ~2000 years ago and it's knowledge were limited due the lack of intellectualism and "functional" intelligence. Keep in mind most people didn't even know to write or think rationally as people in the XXI. century. 
If someone like Jesus would reincarnate again then, Himself most likely use concept showing relatedness much more with Psychic-biology than 2000 years ago. 

I do believe or i should say that i know there's more than what our limited senses can translate to understand. If we had higher intelligence, consciousness then our brain would be more functional to understand the so called "Esoteric-Higher Sense" concepts.

Just like some people are able to experience telekinesis. If the majority of people were able to experience it then it wouldn't be "spiritual" anymore but an everyday thing, just like most people would have thought a flying Plane as "God" back in time.

----------


## tivali

The question is hard to answer because different people mean different things by "God". And that's perhaps the best reason why my most straightforward answer to the straightforward question is "no". 

To expand slightly, let me just apply my usual rant: the question of whether something "exists" is universally irrelevant. It's not even logically well-formed: "exists X" is a syntax error in logic. To be well formed it has to have a structure like "Does there exist an X such that X does thus-and-such?" People strip the question down to "Does X exist" only when they can't agree on any thus-and-such. 

It implies that they're so desperate to continue to believe in X that they're willing to give up any actual properties of X. Or worse, play silly games where they think they can get from "OK, X exists, therefore it's the kind of X I think it is." That's vacuous and useless.

So a slightly less straightforward answer is "I have no reason to care whether it exists or not." People who insist that it must matter to me always, every time, universally end up making it in the form of an unprovable assertion, a form of argument so transparently invalid as to make me certain they will never say anything of value to me.

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

.
I dont believe to the images/icons or the views...
but how else to show it.
Let say/write/image it;
 just as... 


*" Π "*
3,1415926535897932384626...


"Αεί Θεός γεωμετρεί " ΠΛΑΤΩΝ
Timeless God (practising) geometry.


Hey, I am not good at maths... -God please, forgive me!  :Disappointed:

----------


## Jovialis

I am not sure whether God exists or not.

Moreover, God(s) may be a lot different from how they've been interpreted by religion.

----------


## zanipolo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Australia

----------


## Diomedes

Is the god of the Bible the same as the god of the gospels?

----------


## Rethel

> Is the god of the Bible the same as the god of the gospels?


Considering tha fact, that Gospels are part of the Bible,
and are reffering to other parts of the Bible, surely is.

----------


## Sile

Before moslem began ~600AD.......90% of Arabs where pagans

Why do they hate pagans so much ?

----------


## Rethel

> Why do they hate pagans so much ?


Becasue they are still pagans themselves.

----------


## IronSide

> Becasue they are still pagans themselves.


 So they hate pagans because they are still pagan ..

such Logic .. such rigour ..

----------


## Rethel

> So they hate pagans because they are still pagan ..
> 
> such Logic .. such rigour ..


It is so hard to think a little?
They obviously want to be seen as not pagans.

It is like with some people, who being for example
Jews, very much want to be Europeans, and as a
underlining their supposeable native europeanness,
they ostentatiously dislakie Jews - much more than 
exrteem non-jews - even hate them... so such logic.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Before moslem began ~600AD.......90% of Arabs where pagans
> 
> Why do they hate pagans so much ?


It's because 600 ad was 1,400 years ago.

----------


## Rethel

> It's because 600 ad was 1,400 years ago.


And they still did not conquer the world, as they were promised... cult failed.

----------


## Boreas

> Before moslem began ~600AD.......90% of Arabs where pagans
> 
> Why do they hate pagans so much ?


Watch to movie Agora, answer the question why the christian hate pagans, then you will find the answer.

----------


## hrvclv

To get back to Maciamo's original inquiry, my answer : somewhere in between some of the options given.
God was a word first given to what men could not understand, the Great Mystery around them that baffled them. As I view things, it should have remained that.
I never could bring myself to believe in the "oriental tales" the three monotheistic religions are grounded in. Yet those two lines by Voltaire get some echo deep inside me :
"L'univers m'interroge, et je ne puis songer
Que cette horloge existe et n'ait pas d'horloger."
The universe baffles me, and I can't imagine
That this clock might exist without a clockmaker.
It came as a surprise when I once heard a world-famous atheist astrophysicist explain on TV that after years of research, what he was left with at the end of the road was the suspicion that perhaps, behind the great cosmic show, there was some sort of "designer".
So I am some sort of sceptic/deist/pantheist.
And I think that when it comes to religion we should restrict ourselves to convictions, not certainties.
People with convictions will try to win you over with words.
People with certainties will try to win you over with words first, then blackmail (eg: eternity in hell), then a knife under your throat.
Whatever the Maker, Soul, Breath of Life of the universe can be, I guess we should refrain from trying to give it a face, a voice, or moral preoccupations. We should humbly stick to what we know, and we know nothing.
Morals are a strictly human concern, certainly beneficial to all, but aimed primarily at "efficiency", peaceful coexistence, smooth social relationships. Moral codes would have (and probably had) emerged even without the support of any religious dogma. We men didn't need the assistance of religion to devise the Highway Code.
I like those two lines from an old song by French singer Georges Brassens. They sum up my own "gospel" :
"Gloire à qui n'ayant pas d'idéal sacro-saint / Se borne à ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins."
(Gory be to those who - having no holy ideal - / Stick to not pissing off their neighbours too much.)

----------


## don_joe

I don't bother with something I'll never be able to grasp and I don't have to give it a name. If the universe is a clock and there has to be a clockmaker, how did the clockmaker come to existence? We can go back in causality forever. It's similar to explanation how did the life on earth start. A lot of people would say that it came from the universe, they don't believe in the primordial soup theory. OK, than where and how did it start in the universe? The beginning has to be somewhere...if it's not independently in different locations, but than the question is still how? This reasoning shifts only the explanation somewhere further but it doesn't ultimatively answer the question. 

Another thing is why does God usually have to be a personification of a human? The universe is vast, does he or she have to look like someone from a line of apes (or primates if you will)? Why are the Gods mostly he or she? Does he or she accordingly have chromosomes?

I don't want to offend anyone. I myself have no doubts. The outcome of the tonight's football match will certainly not depend on anyone's prayers.

----------


## IronSide

I was very religious, at the age of 15 I became very knowledgeable in the Quran and Hadiths, I went to the Mosque for all five prayers, my soul was at peace. As for why I became an Atheist, there were many arguments, doubt started with my interest in comparative mythology and religion, and was finished off by an interest in Science, I realised the conflict between the supposed word of God, and the supposed creation of God, the conclusion was that God didn't talk to Muhammad, didn't talk to any human, the Quran is of human agency.

Atheist in Saudi could be dangerous if you're too loud about it, I was careful, but somehow most of my friends knew, no one cared, I discovered that two of them were actually Atheists.

My little brother also turned Atheist, independently :) he was keeping it a secret for about a year.

The thing I still don't get is that whenever I'm sick or in a dire situation I unconsciously start praying to God, deep down I still love God, a contradiction, maybe a leftover from the old system.

----------


## AdeoF

In the past i was more religious and went to church every Sunday but as I got older i was really thinking if God does exist or not. Well right now im not religious just chilling, but who knows hey!!!

----------


## zanipolo

I believe in God but not in any religious institute

----------


## Yetos

> I was very religious, at the age of 15 I became very knowledgeable in the Quran and Hadiths, I went to the Mosque for all five prayers, my soul was at peace. As for why I became an Atheist, there were many arguments, doubt started with my interest in comparative mythology and religion, and was finished off by an interest in Science, I realised the conflict between the supposed word of God, and the supposed creation of God, the conclusion was that God didn't talk to Muhammad, didn't talk to any human, the Quran is of human agency.
> 
> Atheist in Saudi could be dangerous if you're too loud about it, I was careful, but somehow most of my friends knew, no one cared, I discovered that two of them were actually Atheists.
> 
> My little brother also turned Atheist, independently :) he was keeping it a secret for about a year.
> 
> The thing I still don't get is that whenever I'm sick or in a dire situation I unconsciously start praying to God, deep down I still love God, a contradiction, maybe a leftover from the old system.



That is a good point,
so the same thing that make you Atheist,
the same thing spoke to through Prophets,
the same thing is God or plenty of Gods,

In Greek it called ΛΟΓΟΣ logos 
in rough English trnsaltion is called common logic,
but Logos is different to every human,
according their fears and their needs,
and which is above? Logos or survival,

your next steps with science-Logos 
is to choose, the law, or the free spirit,

at the end you will distinguish the multi-world
the multi-characters
the multi-needs
the multi-pleasures
the multi-thinking
and you will give your own names to these Gods,

Wellcome back to 'free' man Logos.

----------


## IronSide

> That is a good point,
> so the same thing that make you Atheist,
> the same thing spoke to through Prophets,
> the same thing is God or plenty of Gods,
> In Greek it called ΛΟΓΟΣ logos 
> in rough English trnsaltion is called common logic,
> but Logos is different to every human,
> according their fears and their needs,
> and which is above? Logos or survival,
> ...


I am thankful for thy post Oh wise one, if God existed he/she would have made you a prophet. Yetos the Prophet of the Greeks.

such inspiring cryptic words.

----------


## Yetos

> I am thankful for thy post Oh wise one, if God existed he/she would have made you a prophet. Yetos the Prophet of the Greeks.
> 
> such inspiring cryptic words.


pure Greeks do not have prophets
they have oracles and philosophers
so call me such

----------


## Yetos

That is a 'battle' among different religions.
old and new ones,

old religion
about 1000 mainly Pakistanis celebrating prophets birthday.

new Religion
about 80-100 Football fans of PAOK from Makedonia and Athens who gathered to go to stadium.

the result 





the reason for newcasters unknown,
for Police, I still not found a post.
For PAOK fans, 'they attacked us, believing we are a Nazi gathering'
for the pilgrims, still not found a post.

True reason,
none Religion above my own,
no one must yell more more than my God,
either his name is Allah, either his name is Paok.

consider how many Gods exist in Europe,
that is somehing I still like in Europe.
*the last place that still gives birth to new ideas, new Gods, etc*

personally I haven't heard such a conflict before,
among hools and pilgrims, at least in Europe.

----------


## Thorbjorn

Despite my Nordic handle and affinity for the Norse, and being of Italian-American descent I practice Hinduism (I'm complicated). We tend to see the gods and goddesses as both individuals _and_ as manifestations (as we are) of Brahman, the only reality. There is a mahāvākya (lit. "great saying") from the Vedas that pretty much sums it up: sarvam khalvidam brahma, "all this [we see] is Brahman".

----------


## Salento

Lord's Prayer: Pope Francis calls for change.
Can’t even get a PATER NOSTER right.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42279427

----------


## Angela

> Despite my Nordic handle and affinity for the Norse, and being of Italian-American descent I practice Hinduism (I'm complicated). We tend to see the gods and goddesses as both individuals _and_ as manifestations (as we are) of Brahman, the only reality. There is a mahāvākya (lit. "great saying") from the Vedas that pretty much sums it up: sarvam khalvidam brahma, "all this [we see] is Brahman".


Why on earth would an Italian American have an affinity for the Norse gods? They have nothing to do with you.

If it's something to do with warrior cults and killing, there's plenty of bad behavior among your own ancestors.

Still, not my business, of course.

----------


## IronSide

> Why on earth would an Italian American have an affinity for the Norse? They have nothing to do with you.
> If it's something to do with warrior cults and killing, there's plenty of bad behavior among your own ancestors.
> Still, not my business, of course.


I venerate Odin and I'm Arabian :) its just that Norse gods have a certain appeal .. for some reason

----------


## Thorbjorn

> Why on earth would an Italian American have an affinity for the Norse? They have nothing to do with you.
> 
> If it's something to do with warrior cults and killing, there's plenty of bad behavior among your own ancestors.
> 
> Still, not my business, of course.


No, it's a valid question!  :Good Job:  I have no idea either.  :Thinking:  I just feel drawn to the Norse gods, Thor in particular, whom I include in my religious practice. Pretty much in the same way I feel drawn to the Hindu gods, Hinduism and anything Indian. No, nothing to do with killing. I abhor violence. It's not the oft-thought of "Odinism" and screaming _"Valhallaaaaaa!!!"_  :Laughing:  But I do wear Mjöllnir and *ॐ* (om) pendants. In fact, having hit a deer the other night and watch it die I was crying like a baby and asking it (and Lord Shiva, lord of animals) for forgiveness. People (Hindu friends) tell me I may have lived as those (Norse, Hindu, and some others) in past lives. We typically hold that we are often reborn as the same sort of being as we were in past lives, to complete some learning or tasks. 

I told you I'm complicated! (my family says "weird").  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## davef

> No, it's a valid question!  I have no idea either.  I just feel drawn to the Norse gods, Thor in particular, whom I include in my religious practice. Pretty much in the same way I feel drawn to the Hindu gods, Hinduism and anything Indian. No, nothing to do with killing. I abhor violence. It's not the oft-thought of "Odinism" and screaming _"Valhallaaaaaa!!!"_  But I do wear Mjöllnir and *ॐ* (om) pendants. In fact, having hit a deer the other night and watch it die I was crying like a baby and asking it (and Lord Shiva, lord of animals) for forgiveness. People (Hindu friends) tell me I may have lived as those (Norse, Hindu, and some others) in past lives. We typically hold that we are often reborn as the same sort of being as we were in past lives, to complete some learning or tasks. 
> 
> I told you I'm complicated! (my family says "weird").


That's ok! I'm glad you're exploring other cultures.

Its good to explore other cultures for a different perspective.

----------


## Thorbjorn

> I venerate Odin and I'm Arabian :) its just that Norse gods have a certain appeal .. for some reason


Right!!?? 

Btw, my comment about screaming "Valhallaaaa!!!" was just a joke. I know there are very serious devotees of the All-Father (he still scares me though).  :Wink:

----------


## Thorbjorn

> That's ok! I'm glad you're exploring other cultures.
> 
> Its good to explore other cultures for a different perspective.


Thanks... I think the world might be a happier place if more people did that.  :Smile:  But that's just my way.  :Wink:

----------


## Salento

> I venerate Odin and I'm Arabian :) its just that Norse gods have a certain appeal .. for some reason


I understand the appeal to Asgard. Odin gave superpowers to his son Thor, Jehovah instead allowed his son Jesus to be nailed to a Cross.
That’s Lame. 
(I must remember this post next time I go to Confession).

----------


## don_joe

> I understand the appeal to Asgard. Odin gave superpowers to his son Thor, Jehovah instead allowed his son Jesus to be nailed to a Cross.
> That’s Lame. 
> (I must remember this post next time I go to Confession).


 Didn't Jesus show his superpower afterwards?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## Angela

I'm sorry, but he just sounds like a combination of Jupiter and maybe Heracles to me, one more variation on the Indo-European thunder and warrior god, a mythology which I don't find very attractive. Only difference is that Jupiter hasn't had Marvel Comics made about him. 

If you want to explore other religions, I'd suggest religions with some intellectual and philosophical under-pinning. You could start with a good book on comparative religion or a course at your local college. 

This stuff, like the Wicka nonsense, is just religion lite, imo, no offense meant. If you're smart enough to be on this site, which you obviously are, you might find something more profound and evolved will satisfy you more. 

If you prefer defunct religions about warriors, Mithras is the one, in my opinion. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism

----------


## Salento

> Didn't Jesus show his superpower afterwards?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app


I guess Jesus superpower is “Enhance Pain Tolerance”. Otherwise why would allow anybody to Nail him to a Cross.

----------


## IronSide

Lets change the subject:

Did you know that most Greek gods don't have a clear Indo-European etymological construction ? It is possible that the Mycenaeans did not bring with them other gods except Zeus, Eos, and the Dioskouroi.

Probably the most well known example is Athena, associated with the city of Athens. The name of the city in ancient Greek is Ἀθῆναι (Athenai), a plural toponym, designating the place where—according to myth—she presided over her sisterhood, the Athenai.

Testimonies from different cities in ancient Greece attest that similar city goddesses were worshipped in other cities and, like Athena, took their names from the cities where they were worshipped. For example, in Mycenae there was a goddess called Mykene, whose sisterhood was known as Mykenai, whereas at Thebes an analogous deity was called Thebe, and the city was known under the plural form Thebai (or Thebes, in English, where the ‘s’ is the plural formation). The name Athenai is likely of Pre-Greek origin because it contains the presumably Pre-Greek morpheme *-ān-.

Plato notes that the citizens of Sais in Egypt worshipped a goddess known as Neith, whom he identifies with Athena. Neith was the ancient Egyptian goddess of war and hunting, who was also associated with weaving; her worship began during the Egyptian Pre-Dynastic period. This imo suggests a common origin in the Neolithic.

Dionysus shares myths with the Etruscan Fufluns, including the story of his birth, which parallels the story of Zeus and Semele. Like that myth, the pregnant Semla is killed by Tinia in the form of lightning bolt, who then continues to bear Fufluns by sewing the infant into his thigh and later giving birth to him. However, Semla continues to appear in artwork in association with an adult Fufluns after her death, indicating either a resurrection or immortalization of his mother. 

A number of non-Greek etymologies for Apollo's name have been suggested, The Hittite form Apaliunas (dx-ap-pa-li-u-na-aš) is attested in the Manapa-Tarhunta letter, perhaps related to Hurrian (and certainly the Etruscan) Aplu, a god of plague, in turn likely from Akkadian Aplu Enlil meaning simply "the son of Enlil", a title that was given to the god Nergal, who was linked to Shamash, Babylonian god of the sun.

I should start a thread about this soon :)

----------


## Thorbjorn

> I'm sorry, but he just sounds like a combination of Jupiter and maybe Heracles to me, one more variation on the Indo-European thunder and warrior god, a mythology which I don't find very attractive. Only difference is that Jupiter hasn't had Marvel Comics made about him. 
> 
> If you want to explore other religions, I'd suggest religions with some intellectual and philosophical under-pinning. You could start with a good book on comparative religion or a course at your local college. 
> 
> This stuff, like the Wicka nonsense, is just religion lite, imo, no offense meant. If you're smart enough to be on this site, which you obviously are, you might find something more profound and evolved will satisfy you more. 
> 
> If you prefer defunct religions about warriors, Mithras is the one, in my opinion. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism


The ancient indigenous pre-Christian religions of Europe e.g. Roman, Greek, Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon are experiencing a serious reconstruction and revival. Iceland is building the first temple to the Norse gods in over 1,000 years. And the temple is big. So this is pretty serious dedication. Wicca is often looked down on as being "made up". But at its heart, it's not unlike any of the truly ancient beliefs mankind has practiced: nature-based, animist, a duality and balance between light/dark, male/female (god/goddess), etc., not unlike the core concept of Taoism (the taijitu, aka the "yin/yang" symbol represents that). 

There are those who do say the different gods of the IE pantheons are the same god seen through different cultural lenses, e.g. Thor, Donar, Thunor, Perun, Perkunas, Taranis, Jupiter, Zeus, even Indra. And that may be. Some common elements among them are that they are indeed sky gods and gods of weather. But they are less warriors than they are gods of justice, protection, fertility of the earth, protection of man. There is an Awadhi (a language related to Hindi and Bengali) saying that translates as "God shows himself in a way meaningful to his follower". Another verse, from the Rig Veda says _ekam sad vipraa bahudhaa vadanti_: "One Truth sages call by many names". That may be as Krishna or Shiva or another Hindu god/dess to a Hindu; Allah to a Muslim; Jesus to a Christian; Thor, Odin, Freyr, Tyr to a Heathen/Ásatrúar; Brighid, Lugh, Taranis to ta Celtic; and so on. I don't know exactly why the pagan religions of pre-Christian Europe are experiencing such a resurgence, or why Hinduism and Buddhism are gaining the followers they are, but they are. Some estimates (maybe overly generous) put the worldwide number of Ásatrúar in the low 10,000s; other forms of Paganism, over 1 million.

----------


## Yetos

> Lets change the subject:
> 
> Did you know that most Greek gods don't have a clear Indo-European etymological construction ? It is possible that the Mycenaeans did not bring with them other gods except Zeus, Eos, and the Dioskouroi.
> 
> Probably the most well known example is Athena, associated with the city of Athens. The name of the city in ancient Greek is Ἀθῆναι (Athenai), a plural toponym, designating the place where—according to myth—she presided over her sisterhood, the Athenai.
> 
> Testimonies from different cities in ancient Greece attest that similar city goddesses were worshipped in other cities and, like Athena, took their names from the cities where they were worshipped. For example, in Mycenae there was a goddess called Mykene, whose sisterhood was known as Mykenai, whereas at Thebes an analogous deity was called Thebe, and the city was known under the plural form Thebai (or Thebes, in English, where the ‘s’ is the plural formation). The name Athenai is likely of Pre-Greek origin because it contains the presumably Pre-Greek morpheme *-ān-.
> 
> Plato notes that the citizens of Sais in Egypt worshipped a goddess known as Neith, whom he identifies with Athena. Neith was the ancient Egyptian goddess of war and hunting, who was also associated with weaving; her worship began during the Egyptian Pre-Dynastic period. This imo suggests a common origin in the Neolithic.
> ...


man 
I 'd like to see what you have,  :Thinking: 
I also like cause i may recount  :Laughing:

----------


## firetown

> Thanks... I think the world might be a happier place if more people did that.  But that's just my way.


It was quite the opposite for me. Growing up in a multi-denominational household, listening to other people's beliefs and non-beliefs became exhausting.

----------


## Carlos

I do not know what to believe anymore. God said: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" (Mt 11:28).


Maybe what I do not understand is how to go to him. In general, the messages given by religions are good, but nowadays, who is able to follow all the precepts and religious laws being a simple citizen of the foot.


I do not understand God and sometimes I think he is a great bastard, but I think he could exist, but it is very difficult to access him, for that reason he used the saints and virgins when one is at the age of existentialist problems, but when I was in front of the image of the Virgin in any chapel or church I prayed but I also started insulting the image (interiorly) with all kinds of insults, besides being praying without too much faith I am insulting a sacred image, but it has not generated a trauma, so be what God wants because I do not understand anything at all about anything.

Anyway, I do believe that I am realizing that when a society abandons religion it gets worse and that society becomes more inhuman, perhaps it feels that it advances more in pecuniary aspects, scientific e.t.c. but atrocities and acts are seen in ordinary people and generalized much worse than when you have a respect and more or less you have a respect for a God or religion.

----------


## Salento

> flying spaghetti monster lulz 1 tru god repent now or 4 eva hold ur peace


Spell God backward, “could it be, that this is the real one ?”  

Anubis : Egyptian God.

----------


## Carlos

I do not think the Egyptians were visited by the aliens in principle because no one has yet proven that the aliens exist and secondly because some tangible evidence or would not have been found and has not been so at least to this day.


The anthropomorphic Gods, with the head of a jackal or a lion, bird wings e, t, c, can be simply a symbolic aspect, they are also elements of the environment in this case of the Egyptians and can create a thousand anthropomorphic compositions, I do not see nothing special about it other than to impress the plebs and make it clear that the Gods have superhuman qualities.


If I already have trouble praying to a Christian image to one with a jackal's head, it is because I put it to birth.

----------


## Salento

> I do not think the Egyptians were visited by the aliens in principle because no one has yet proven that the aliens exist and secondly because some tangible evidence or would not have been found and has not been so at least to this day.
> 
> 
> The anthropomorphic Gods, with the head of a jackal or a lion, bird wings e, t, c, can be simply a symbolic aspect, they are also elements of the environment in this case of the Egyptians and can create a thousand anthropomorphic compositions, I do not see nothing special about it other than to impress the plebs and make it clear that the Gods have superhuman qualities.
> 
> 
> If I already have trouble praying to a Christian image to one with a jackal's head, it is because I put it to birth.


Carlos, we are just been Sarcastic. 
“Divirtiéndose”

----------


## Azzurro

Y-H-W-H

The Lord God

----------


## Angela

In fact, I'm going to delete all the nonsense posts which ruined this thread. Don't do this kind of thing again. Am I clear?

----------


## Angela

I wrote this here about two years ago. I'm still an agnostic, but if I were to believe in a god, this is what he would be like.

" Originally Posted by *Aberdeen*_Okay, you seem to really know this stuff, so I'm going to ask you a question that, AFAIK, an insular European such as Kierkegaard didn't feel the need to address. After one ponders spiritual issues, if one decides to make a leap of faith and believe in a god, why should one decide to believe in the christian god rather than some other deity? Is it simply a cultural issue? It seems to me that, just as with positing the idea that the existence of a universe necessitates some unspecified creator, deciding on the need to believe in some kind of creator does not get you to a justification for believing in a specific creator.

_

It’s been a long time since I’ve read any of these theological works. Most of my copies of their books are in a box in the attic. (You can see how far I have fallen away.) All I have on my computer are quotes from them that I’ve kept.


Here is a very Kierkegaard like one from Hans Kung:
“historical arguments; traditional apologetics breaks down here. Since man is here dealing with God and this by definition means with the invisible, impalpable, uncontrollable, only one attitude is appropriate and required : believing trust, trusting faith.”

FWIW, I don’t remember Kierkegaard ever addressing even the question of Judaism. For him, Christianity is an absolute.

A few of their books _are_ still in my bookcases, and I’ll see if I can find some pertinent quotes.


I _can_ say that personally, if I were to be a believer, I would be a Christian. 


Christianity, and Judaism before it are totally different from paganism and the eastern religions-Hindusim, Buddhism, Tao.


My reason leads me to believe in a transcendent God, the creator of the universe, not a god(s) who is part of the universe. The pagan gods were just immortal men, subject to all the vices and sins of ordinary men. Buddhism and Hinduism, while they are profound religions which exhibit deep reflection on the nature of reality, the divine, and the meaning of life and suffering, are really pantheistic religions in which, reduced to their essence, the godhead is basically the universe itself. 


It’s only in the monotheistic religions of the Near East that we have an individual transcendent God who _creates_ the universe. That makes more sense to me.


Moreover, he is a God who manifests himself in history and with whom we can communicate. He is a _personal_ God.


Also, the eastern religions do not, in my opinion, satisfactorily address the question of human suffering. The “solution” to suffering in the eastern religions is to stop existing. That is the goal. When, after multiple reincarnations you have learned the necessary “lessons”, you will be rewarded by never being incarnated again, and merging into the formless universe. In Christianity, suffering is the _means…_it’s through the redemptive suffering of Christ and our participation _in_ that _suffering_, that we and the world are redeemed. That redemption leads to an afterlife in which the individual identity remains intact.


To use the old formulation, death will be no more, not because we will be blessed by non-existence, but because we will have a different, but still unique_, individual_ existence. 


Also, in Christianity there is, contrary to the eastern religions, a definition of the godhead as a _loving_ God. A God, moreover, who, to quote Kierkegaard again, became man and suffered _because_ of that love for mankind, and in the process could say to mankind, "See, here is what it is to be a human being."

The differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam would be a whole other long post, but I think some of the differences can be inferred just from what I have written.


Of course, I’m aware that the form my logic, my reasoning takes, even my _preference,_ perhaps, if you will, for this definition of God, for this theology, is grounded in a very “western” oriented, “humanistic” philosophical and theological view of the world, God, and man."

----------


## Адам. Б. К.

He is not in heaven. God is what is in the heart of man. This is what tingles in our breasts when we do wrong things. And that which warms and pleases the soul when we do the right thing. We judge ourselves and pass judgment on ourselves by smoking a cigarette and drinking alcohol. Inspire ourselves with guilt and destroy ourselves.

----------


## Ivar of Rasa Bol

I could not delete my earlier post here, it was not an answer to Maciamos original question. 

So I changed to this: I am my god. And totally without any religion.

----------


## torzio

The question should be directed to all the religious institutions around the world and see what they say

----------


## martinmkp

My upgrades: 
When child - Jesus Christ is my God (because of Christmas and Mother)
When young - do not care.... 
When young adult - I am God...
When middle aged - Yes, there should be a God, maybe (I go to church if my close family are feeling not well, or i need a help in my life journey)
When old - my God I am so sorry with all my sins
When on the dying bed - Dear God, I believe in you, hope we shall meet in the Heaven!

Conclusion: I think we all should live well and let other to live according to their wishes (with or without God). Because the God is not in the church, God is in yourself, inside your life journey... (you can change the word "God" for "Nature", "Brain", "conscience" etc.

----------


## [email protected]

I am an atheist, full stop.

But . . . I have the greatest respect for believers. The smartest, nicest person I ever knew was a devout Catholic. How could I call believers stupid or deceived with him as an example?

----------


## torzio

> I am an atheist, full stop.
> 
> But . . . I have the greatest respect for believers. The smartest, nicest person I ever knew was a devout Catholic. How could I call believers stupid or deceived with him as an example?


You might have the most peaceful idea ..............these current religious institutions , who say they praise peace are continually on an *undeclared war* on each other ......*and without consequences* ......imagine if a nation did this , they would loose land or other stuff if they warred like these religious instituations.

----------


## bigsnake49

I am an atheist. However I am very interested in the the myths of each civilization particularly the creation myths. I am by the religion/state interplay. Or other things like the prohibition against eating pork and by extension raising pigs or eating seafood. Very solid advice if one was to avoid getting sick from food that easily spoils. The existence of life after death and judgment of sins can be thought as an inducement to behave here on earth. I believe that the Christian religion is a bit too complicated with the Holy Trinity and the existence of volumes and volumes of theology. Too many theologians that have nothing else to do than to argue incessantly about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I also disagree with the deification of Mary. Poor Joseph got the shaft :). I also think that the Father in the Christian religion has been pushed to the background in favor of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

----------


## ihype02

I am a theist but not into any particular religion.

----------


## Carlos

I think it is a good time to meet God. The world is not worth it.

----------


## Salento

> I think it is a good time to meet God. The world is not worth it.


NO, it’s Not! Summer's coming. You’ll have new stories to tell, 
and we want to hear them :)

----------


## torzio

> I am a theist but not into any particular religion.



Wording of the question when I answered: *What is the difference between deism and theism?**Deism*is the belief in a creator, who made the world but does not take a personal interest in it -- doesn't require worship, answer prayers, judge behavior, or necessarily promise a life after death (unless that was part of the original creation). Deism is a fairly benign belief, because there are no consequences for accepting or rejecting it.
*Theism* is the belief in an active, interventionist god who not only created the world (and some believe fine-tuned it for human use), but also may require worship, answer prayers, judge sinners, and may have created a divine son or other entities to live among humans. Most theists are 100 percent certain their god(s) exist, and have faith in this without any objective, verifiable evidence. There are many theistic religions, each of which insists it is the only true one.

----------


## Salento

> Wording of the question when I answered: *What is the difference between deism and theism?**Deism*is the belief in a creator, who made the world but does not take a personal interest in it -- doesn't require worship, answer prayers, judge behavior, or necessarily promise a life after death (unless that was part of the original creation). Deism is a fairly benign belief, because there are no consequences for accepting or rejecting it.
> *Theism* is the belief in an active, interventionist god who not only created the world (and some believe fine-tuned it for human use), but also may require worship, answer prayers, judge sinners, and may have created a divine son or other entities to live among humans. Most theists are 100 percent certain their god(s) exist, and have faith in this without any objective, verifiable evidence. There are many theistic religions, each of which insists it is the only true one.


Let me know what is it once you get there!

... this is real cryptic !

----------


## torzio

> Let me know what is it once you get there!
> 
> ... this is real cryptic !


looking for one which gives me 100% gender equality

----------


## Ack

Beliefs are usually individual or collective emotional crutches. Human beings create various types of emotional crutches, I also have mine, but they are not religious.



__


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR]

----------


## RosieRosie

God is one, but each has his own God.

----------


## Questions

> I know I already posted another thread with poll named "What is your religion", but this survey is a bit different. I am NOT asking what is one's religion, but only if you believe in God(s) regardless of what specific religion you belong to.


The Silurian Druids were the first people in Britain to accept Jesus. The Druids before them had 'Zeus, Jupiter and the Oak'. They stretched from Pelasgian Crete to Pelasgian Thessaly, to the Ligurian Nemeton at Massalia and the sacred groves of Cornwall.

----------


## EV13SON

I like the Gods of old and Nature Spirits they seemed to ground us more to this world, but if I want to think it through I'd have to arrive at what the "Diest" thought...One supreme entity that created everything and does not interfere...To me to deny the existence of God would be to deny your own...I'm really hoping we are not judged for our actions...that would be a real pity...I'm not really into being a complete goody-goody, where is the fun in that? :)

----------


## torzio

the one that supports *Full Gender Equality*

----------


## Angela

I wish I had Jung's certainty.

----------


## firetown

> I wish I had Jung's certainty.


_Added:
_Please see clarification here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post644078

----------


## Angela

> I am drawn to both, his confusion and his certainties. "I know" is something I can now relate to in terms of whether or not g-d exists. Not in a religious manner. Religions tried to explain and wrote stories around it. Many silly ones as well.


There we differ. If I were to say I believe, much less "I know", the only God to whom I could claim allegiance is the one I described in post 205, and for the reasons I outlined there.

I also don't know if you have read How the Christian Revolution Created the Western Mind; I highly recommend it even for those who will wind up disagreeing with it.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...stian+Humanism

----------


## bigsnake49

> There we differ. If I were to say I believe, much less "I know", the only God to whom I could claim allegiance is the one I described in post 205, and for the reasons I outlined there.
> 
> I also don't know if you have read How the Christian Revolution Created the Western Mind; I highly recommend it even for those who will wind up disagreeing with it.
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...stian+Humanism


After suppressing the western mind for about a thousand years, sure...

----------


## Angela

> After suppressing the western mind for about a thousand years, sure...


I make it a point not to debate people who are closed to religion; it’s fruitless, especially for someone with her own doubts. 

I would just say that imo the pagan gods were childish, and had little to do with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks. On the other hand, Christianity is the OT fused with Greek and Roman philosophy, especially Greek philosophy. There would be no Christianity but for Plato and Aristotle. I had to sit through enough classes on the writings of the Church fathers and especially Thomas Aquinas to at least be certain of that. :) It is all very far from the Yahweh of the OT.

----------


## firetown

> I wrote this here about two years ago. I'm still an agnostic, but if I were to believe in a god, this is what he would be like.
> 
> " Originally Posted by *Aberdeen*_Okay, you seem to really know this stuff, so I'm going to ask you a question that, AFAIK, an insular European such as Kierkegaard didn't feel the need to address. After one ponders spiritual issues, if one decides to make a leap of faith and believe in a god, why should one decide to believe in the christian god rather than some other deity? Is it simply a cultural issue? It seems to me that, just as with positing the idea that the existence of a universe necessitates some unspecified creator, deciding on the need to believe in some kind of creator does not get you to a justification for believing in a specific creator.
> 
> _
> 
> It’s been a long time since I’ve read any of these theological works. Most of my copies of their books are in a box in the attic. (You can see how far I have fallen away.) All I have on my computer are quotes from them that I’ve kept.
> 
> 
> ...



I think that the First Congress of Nicea was where the blueprint for the upcoming Holy Roman Empire was developed. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Here is something Jung once stated:

„Well, I was sitting opposite of her one day, with my back to the window, listening to her flow of rhetoric. She had an impressive dream the night before, in which someone had given her a golden scarab-a costly piece of jewellery. While she was still telling me this dream, I heard something behind me gently tapping on the window. I turned round and saw that it was a fairly large flying insect that was knocking against the window from outside in the obvious effort to get into the dark room. This seemed to me very strange. I opened the window and immediately and caught the insect in the air as it flew in. It was a scarabaeid beetle, or common rose-chafer, whose gold-green color most nearly resembles that of a golden scarab. I handed the beetle to my patient with the words “Here is your scarab.”“

– Carl Jung

----------


## firetown

Apparently Jung regretted giving the "I don't need to believe, I know" reply to the question if he believed:
https://steve.myers.co/jungs-regret-...201959a%2C%20p.



> After the interview, Jung expressed concern that most people thought “the truth is simple and can be expressed by one short sentence” (Jung 1959c). In Jung’s view, the truth about God is complex because God is a mystery whose nature is beyond human comprehension. In trying to understand God, we each create our own image of him – and the image is never accurate. Jung recognised this about his own image of God:Whatever I perceive from without or within is a representation or image… caused, as I rightly or wrongly assume, by a corresponding “real” object. But I have to admit that my subjective image is only grosso modo identical with the object…
> our images are, as a rule, of something… The God-image is the expression of an underlying experience of something which I cannot attain to by intellectual means… (Jung 1959c)
> In another letter, Jung makes it clear that he would have given a different response if he had been asked whether he agreed with anyone’s particular image of God (Jung 1959b). Because of the mysterious and incomprehensible nature of God, no image of God will ever be adequate. He therefore asserted the inadequacy of all images of God, including his own.

----------


## Angela

> Apparently Jung regretted giving the "I don't need to believe, I know" reply to the question if he believed:
> https://steve.myers.co/jungs-regret-...201959a%2C%20p.





> "_But I have to admit that my subjective image is only grosso modo identical with the object…_
> _our images are, as a rule, of something… The God-image is the expression of an underlying experience of something which I cannot attain to by intellectual means… (Jung 1959c)_*
> In another letter, Jung makes it clear that he would have given a different response if he had been asked whether he agreed with anyone’s particular image of God (Jung 1959b). Because of the mysterious and incomprehensible nature of God, no image of God will ever be adequate. He therefore asserted the inadequacy of all images of God, including his own."
> 
> *


Yes, I agree with what he said. No one can comprehend the true nature of God completely, if indeed he exists. What I was trying to express was why the image of the Godhead in Catholic dogma "appeals" to me so much more than the images of God presented by the other major religions. Of course, it appeals for a lot of reasons, because of the years of, some would say, indoctrination in Christian theology, because it is a "western" concept of God, although whether Christianity created the western mind or the western mind created Christianity is an open question for me. It appeals, unlike Judaism, because it speaks to, and offers salvation to, every human being on earth, not just one ethnic group.

It's also because it answers the needs of my own personality. The omnipresence of human suffering is very "real" and "visceral" to me. Every psychological test I've ever taken reports very high levels of empathy, although I didn't need tests to tell me that. It was one of the problems I had with my profession. I was literally becoming ill from the constant exposure to the suffering inflicted on people by other human beings, in addition to the suffering that is just part of existence, the suffering of innocents through disease, physical as well as psychological. That's why I could never have become a doctor or psychiatrist or social worker. It's as if I feel people's suffering myself, and I've come to believe that in too many chases there is nothing that we can do. I want that suffering to have meaning. 

I also am extraordinarily attached to the people I love, not must parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, but also extremely close friends. Their loss is an open wound. My mother died almost two decades ago; speaking of her suffering and death to others is still almost impossible for me because I embarrass myself by dissolving into tears. I don't want a God where upon my death my consciousness disappears into some "universal soul". It's not enough. I want to know her, them, as myself. I want the reunion promised by Christianity. 

So, Christianity is the religion which most "appeals" to me, answers questions about existence in a manner that satisfies me. 

However, is it "true"? Is it close to the reality? I still don't know. I wish I had the belief that I used to have in my childhood and young adulthood, but I don't. I haven't been able to make that "leap" into faith that Kierkegaard discusses. I know people who still attend Mass, recite the Nicene creed by rote, take Communion, but don't really "believe" some of the tenets of that Creed. I can't do that. It isn't enough that I could recite it in my sleep; if I can't BELIEVE all of its tenets, then I'm not really a Christian, and so I won't go.

----------


## firetown

> Yes, I agree with what he said. No one can comprehend the true nature of God completely, if indeed he exists. What I was trying to express was why the image of the Godhead in Catholic dogma "appeals" to me so much more than the images of God presented by the other major religions. Of course, it appeals for a lot of reasons, because of the years of, some would say, indoctrination in Christian theology, because it is a "western" concept of God, although whether Christianity created the western mind or the western mind created Christianity is an open question for me. It appeals, unlike Judaism, because it speaks to, and offers salvation to, every human being on earth, not just one ethnic group.
> 
> It's also because it answers the needs of my own personality. The omnipresence of human suffering is very "real" and "visceral" to me. Every psychological test I've ever taken reports very high levels of empathy, although I didn't need tests to tell me that. It was one of the problems I had with my profession. I was literally becoming ill from the constant exposure to the suffering inflicted on people by other human beings, in addition to the suffering that is just part of existence, the suffering of innocents through disease, physical as well as psychological. That's why I could never have become a doctor or psychiatrist or social worker. It's as if I feel people's suffering myself, and I've come to believe that in too many chases there is nothing that we can do. I want that suffering to have meaning. 
> 
> I also am extraordinarily attached to the people I love, not must parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, but also extremely close friends. Their loss is an open wound. My mother died almost two decades ago; speaking of her suffering and death to others is still almost impossible for me because I embarrass myself by dissolving into tears. I don't want a God where upon my death my consciousness disappears into some "universal soul". It's not enough. I want to know her, them, as myself. I want the reunion promised by Christianity. 
> 
> So, Christianity is the religion which most "appeals" to me, answers questions about existence in a manner that satisfies me. 
> 
> However, is it "true"? Is it close to the reality? I still don't know. I wish I had the belief that I used to have in my childhood and young adulthood, but I don't. I haven't been able to make that "leap" into faith that Kierkegaard discusses. I know people who still attend Mass, recite the Nicene creed by rote, take Communion, but don't really "believe" some of the tenets of that Creed. I can't do that. It isn't enough that I could recite it in my sleep; if I can't BELIEVE all of its tenets, then I'm not really a Christian, and so I won't go.


I had to let go of all I've been told in the past as those who "taught" me were conditioned and confused themselves. What appeals to me is the synchronicity encounter Jung stated. There are others. There are many. It doesn't mean we have to identify "the force".

----------


## EV13SON

Well If I had to settle on one I gotta go with Christianity...I love my beer, wine, and bacon! Plus Jesus is a really nice guy, be like Jesus :)

----------

