Is There a God?

Is there a God?


  • Total voters
    64

No, it's one of personal preference, not of semantics. As objective truth cannot be a relevant factor in it, subjective plausibility is the deciding factor in whether or not an axiom is to be accepted by someone or not.

If I were to believe in the "none of it is" side of that, I guess I'd just save myself the waste of any further time and kill myself right now, whereas the "all of it is" lets me live a reasonably happy and fulfilled life. So, from this one individual's point of view here, it's hardly just semantics - it's an existentially important difference.

I firmly reject the statement made by some atheists that pantheism were "practically a form of atheism", the same way that they keep rejecting the statement that atheism were "practically a form of Abrahamitic monotheism".

I find it interesting that you think that without a belief in the divine, there's no reason to live and you might as well kill yourself. That may be your truth, and it's fine if it is, but I've found that for myself, I have been far less suicidal and far less likely to actually kill myself, now that I don't believe in the divine. When I believed in the divine, I felt that there was no way I could ever measure up to the insanely unrealistic expectations that were placed on me by the religious system I believed in. I also felt that I must obviously be unworthy of divine love, because if I were worthy, why would my life have been full of all the crap that happened in it (very simplified version of what I felt at the time)?

Now, granted, when I believed in a divine, it was something different than it sounds like you believe in it, but I still find it interesting that you feel life wouldn't be worth living without that particular belief. And I also find it interesting that a huge majority of the people who answered the poll do not believe in the divine.
 
I know that some think there is no objectivity, we observe things subjectively and even change things just by observing them.

I think there is stuff we can study. Two different people can perform the same experiment and get the same results? There's some objectivity there.

I can look at an onion skin under a microscope and see the cells like a little brick wall. So can you, and he and that woman over there. All the kids in my science class see the same thing. Therefore we can conclude that the cells in an onion skin are arranged that way. Simple.

If I were to believe in the "none of it is" side of that, I guess I'd just save myself the waste of any further time and kill myself right now, whereas the "all of it is" lets me live a reasonably happy and fulfilled life. So, from this one individual's point of view here, it's hardly just semantics - it's an existentially important difference.

Your idea of needing a divine creator or you'd rather be dead... Well, OK. If it works for you. You're hardly alone in that need. My mentally ill daughter, who has had severe issues since she was 14, including drug abuse, self harm and suicide attempts, found Jesus this spring and has turned her life around. "Jesus! He's better than crack!" is what my pagan/atheist ex h (her dad) and pagan/atheist me say, not quite in jest, to each other. Of course now she's crying to him because he isn't saved and won't go to heaven... sigh...
 
Re (from kdt26417):
I have one long-time friend in Utah who tends to posit that whether we have faith (e.g. in the existence of God/s) should be decided less on apparent facts and truths, than on an analysis on how and whether that faith will benefit us in our life.

That same friend continues to be an active Mormon, even though he disagrees with much of what he hears in church. He is actually engaged in doing his own part towards reforming the church from within. I have to admire that, even though I can't take up that cross myself. The church just did too much damage to me to make it worth the crusade.

But I know that friend enjoys the fellowship and camaraderie, the sense of belonging and community, that the church offers. And he doesn't want to upset his family by letting them believe his faith is failing and his chances of Celestial glory are shot. He's more of a family-and-community type guy than I am. I'm like, "So my parents are tearing their hair out worrying about my eternal salvation. Let 'em." I'm just cold. I'm like, "Let 'em blame the church for their anxiety. I didn't cause it."

And as we know, Polyamory.com is a perfectly suitable place for socialization. :)

Re (from InsaneMystic):
"If I were to believe in the 'none of it is' side of that, I guess I'd just save myself the waste of any further time and kill myself right now, whereas the 'all of it is' lets me live a reasonably happy and fulfilled life."

Hmmm. See, that's odd to me, because my conception of all that exists contains no God, and yet I zealously live every moment of life I can get. The fact that I expect to receive no afterlife is all the more reason why I want to make every mortal moment count. This is my one and only chance to experience the wonders of the Universe.

But I suppose it's even odder that the first time I "realized," "I'm not gonna have an afterlife," my initial reaction was to dream (for months if not years) of suicide. I, too, was like, "If I have to die forever anyway I'd just as soon kill myself now and get it over with. I'm sick of it." Of course, life as a whole wasn't bringing me a lot of joy at the time, so that's part of what was driving my suicide obsession. I guess you could say I've come to some peace about some things since then. What little peace a man of my selfish egoism can come to.

If the existence of God/s comes with an assurance of a, um, personalized afterlife -- something much more "the whole me" than just life as a memory in other people's brains, nice as it is to leave the world a better place -- then heck yeah, the god question is way more than just semantic (in my eyes). But if the Universe (and Multiverse) is identical (in how it functions) regardless of whether it has a divine identity (e.g. if it's all just as atheist scientists describe it even if it's all God), then I tend to think that the god question makes but a small difference. Hope that makes sense ...

Re (from Magdlyn):
"Two different people can perform the same experiment and get the same results? There's some objectivity there."

Well, I think InsaneMystic's position is that we don't *know* the two people exist ... For all we know, it could be just one person imagining the existence of a second person. And, the one person could be nothing more than brain in a vat. So it's possible that even the experiment doesn't exist (i.e., didn't happen, wasn't really conducted). It could all be a grand illusion.

Although, I tend to doubt the brain-in-a-vat scenario more than I do the "two people really did conduct the experiment" scenario. But I can't be 100% sure.
 
I find it interesting that you think that without a belief in the divine, there's no reason to live and you might as well kill yourself. That may be your truth, and it's fine if it is[...]
Yeah. It was never intended as a statement about objective/universal truth. As I said above already, the one and only objectively true statement I know is "thought exists". :)


I've found that for myself, I have been far less suicidal and far less likely to actually kill myself, now that I don't believe in the divine. When I believed in the divine, I felt that there was no way I could ever measure up to the insanely unrealistic expectations that were placed on me by the religious system I believed in.
I find it pretty awesome that minds/personalities can work so differently from each other that the same thing that makes life worthwhile for one in the first place, would demolish the quality of the other. That kind of diversity is pretty neat... and one of the values I'm most passionate about is freedom of religion, ensuring that none of that diversity may ever be taken away by the state.


I also felt that I must obviously be unworthy of divine love, because if I were worthy, why would my life have been full of all the crap that happened in it (very simplified version of what I felt at the time)?
One of the neat things about pantheism... if the divine is everything equally (whether identical to it, intrinsic part of it, or have it as intrinsic part of itself), this neatly does away with ideas of divine favoritism and morality. The divinity I believe in is utterly amoral, and completely, equally accepting of everything and everyone.

It's also one of the reasons why I make a strong distinction between ethics and morality. While my ethics would crumble without foundation in the god axiom (as I have no reason to respect anything and anyone, just have my own will be done), my faith does not give me any moral compass. God, as I understand this entity, expects nothing of me, and imposes no rules, guidelines, or restrictions on my behavior. Acknowledging the divine presence in other beings just gives me motivation to treat them with respect - not because a divine entity wants me to do so through a commandment (= morality), but because I see it as appropriate to honor that spark of divinity in them out of my own choice (= ethics).


I know that some think there is no objectivity, we observe things subjectively and even change things just by observing them.

I think there is stuff we can study. Two different people can perform the same experiment and get the same results? There's some objectivity there.

I can look at an onion skin under a microscope and see the cells like a little brick wall. So can you, and he and that woman over there. All the kids in my science class see the same thing. Therefore we can conclude that the cells in an onion skin are arranged that way. Simple.
Yes, I'm aware that you believe this. ;)

We'll never be objectively sure of it, though. I can't ever truly know what it is that you are seeing, and in how far it's similar or different from what I'm seeing, or, in fact, whether you are objectively real or a figment of my imagination. I'm very much of the "black box mind" kind of attitude... my statements on solipsism, above, do come from someone who's actually been down that route. It was a dark and dreary place that I only came back from by deciding to go with unquestioning faith in an ubiquitous and omniscient divine presence (which, for me, was a far smaller leap of faith to make than to believe in an objective physical universe that just "is there").


Your idea of needing a divine creator or you'd rather be dead... Well, OK. If it works for you. You're hardly alone in that need. My mentally ill daughter, who has had severe issues since she was 14, including drug abuse, self harm and suicide attempts, found Jesus this spring and has turned her life around. "Jesus! He's better than crack!" is what my pagan/atheist ex h (her dad) and pagan/atheist me say, not quite in jest, to each other. Of course now she's crying to him because he isn't saved and won't go to heaven... sigh...
I guess the difference there is that she considers her belief to be The One Objective Truth? Common problem of organized faith, right there - especially with Christians, Muslims, and, funnily enough, vocal capital-A Atheists.

I simply have no idea if what I believe is objectively true, and it doesn't bother me (anymore) not knowing. It's merely about what works fine for me, subjectively. Objective truth might or might not become an important concept to me once my physical body dies (yet another thing I can just speculate about); until that day comes, the concept is not really relevant for my life anymore. This frees me from caring about whether anyone else shares my belief or not; if something different works just fine for their life, and they can live happy, well-adjusted and pro-social lives already, they obviously and demonstrably have no need for adopting my belief system in their lives.

I'll only start caring if and when they start to preachily convert me to their faith, in which case I'll tell them where to shove it... no matter if they're atheists, Christians, or whathaveyou: once they start proselytizing, it's all "same shit, different assholes" to me. :p



ETA:
Hmmm. See, that's odd to me, because my conception of all that exists contains no God, and yet I zealously live every moment of life I can get. The fact that I expect to receive no afterlife is all the more reason why I want to make every mortal moment count. This is my one and only chance to experience the wonders of the Universe.

But I suppose it's even odder that the first time I "realized," "I'm not gonna have an afterlife," my initial reaction was to dream (for months if not years) of suicide. I, too, was like, "If I have to die forever anyway I'd just as soon kill myself now and get it over with. I'm sick of it." Of course, life as a whole wasn't bringing me a lot of joy at the time, so that's part of what was driving my suicide obsession. I guess you could say I've come to some peace about some things since then. What little peace a man of my selfish egoism can come to.

If the existence of God/s comes with an assurance of a, um, personalized afterlife -- something much more "the whole me" than just life as a memory in other people's brains, nice as it is to leave the world a better place -- then heck yeah, the god question is way more than just semantic (in my eyes). But if the Universe (and Multiverse) is identical (in how it functions) regardless of whether it has a divine identity (e.g. if it's all just as atheist scientists describe it even if it's all God), then I tend to think that the god question makes but a small difference. Hope that makes sense ...
Yeah... it just means your mind works differently than mine. Which comes as exactly zero surprise to me. It would actually more leave me stunned to find someone who thinks exactly as I do, lol. (And a group of people completely in sync with my beliefs would make me paranoid that they are just acting and trying to manipulate me... :p)


Well, I think InsaneMystic's position is that we don't *know* the two people exist ... For all we know, it could be just one person imagining the existence of a second person. And, the one person could be nothing more than brain in a vat. So it's possible that even the experiment doesn't exist (i.e., didn't happen, wasn't really conducted). It could all be a grand illusion.

Although, I tend to doubt the brain-in-a-vat scenario more than I do the "two people really did conduct the experiment" scenario. But I can't be 100% sure.
Bingo. :)

Just adding that personally, the reason why I assign a higher expected probability to the "two persons" scenario than to the "brain in a vat" one is my faith in a panentheistic divine presence. :)
 
Last edited:
Well, I think InsaneMystic's position is that we don't *know* the two people exist ... For all we know, it could be just one person imagining the existence of a second person. And, the one person could be nothing more than brain in a vat. So it's possible that even the experiment doesn't exist (i.e., didn't happen, wasn't really conducted). It could all be a grand illusion.

Although, I tend to doubt the brain-in-a-vat scenario more than I do the "two people really did conduct the experiment" scenario. But I can't be 100% sure.

Well if you want to get really meta and say it's all an illusion, mystics in India figured that out millenia ago, called it maya, without the benefit of knowing about spinning electrons. So, despite that, we need to carry on and enjoy life as the gods want us to, fully and richly. With courage and valor.
 
Re:
"So, despite that, we need to carry on and enjoy life as the gods want us to, fully and richly. With courage and valor."

I like that creed. :)
 
Yeah. It was never intended as a statement about objective/universal truth. As I said above already, the one and only objectively true statement I know is "thought exists". :)



I find it pretty awesome that minds/personalities can work so differently from each other that the same thing that makes life worthwhile for one in the first place, would demolish the quality of the other. That kind of diversity is pretty neat... and one of the values I'm most passionate about is freedom of religion, ensuring that none of that diversity may ever be taken away by the state.



One of the neat things about pantheism... if the divine is everything equally (whether identical to it, intrinsic part of it, or have it as intrinsic part of itself), this neatly does away with ideas of divine favoritism and morality. The divinity I believe in is utterly amoral, and completely, equally accepting of everything and everyone.

It's also one of the reasons why I make a strong distinction between ethics and morality. While my ethics would crumble without foundation in the god axiom (as I have no reason to respect anything and anyone, just have my own will be done), my faith does not give me any moral compass. God, as I understand this entity, expects nothing of me, and imposes no rules, guidelines, or restrictions on my behavior. Acknowledging the divine presence in other beings just gives me motivation to treat them with respect - not because a divine entity wants me to do so through a commandment (= morality), but because I see it as appropriate to honor that spark of divinity in them out of my own choice (= ethics).
One of the things I struggle with, living in Utah, is how many people around me equate morality with ethics. For instance, there's an ethics clause at my work place. It's one of the stated values of the company I work for. One of the reasons that I'm not out as poly to more people where I work is the knowledge that a lot of them would equate poly as being unethical because, according to their personal moral code (I.e. Mormonism), it's immoral and they think that unethical equals the same thing as immoral. They don't seem able to realize that not everyone shares their moral code and that ethics doesn't necessarily mean that everyone had to follow their moral code. If it did, it would mean the company wouldn't provide coffee. Hell, when I was Mormon I had friends that couldn't believe I'd buy my father-in-law a coffee warming plate for Christmas because I was just encouraging him not to come unto Christ. People like that would prefer it be illegal to even drink coffee, thinking laws will make people closer to Christ.

My ethics are based more on wanting to be able to live with myself than on respecting a divine spark in everyone. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror and respect myself if I continually did things that hurt other people. Knowingly causing pain to other people causes me pain. Occasionally I slip up and cause pain, knowingly, by my actions, and that just serves as a reminder that I can't live that way. It's why I would never be able to be involved knowingly with someone who is cheating. I wouldn't be able to live with myself, knowing that my actions have the possibility of causing immense pain in someone else. It sounds like you live this way because you respect what you see as divine in people. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than living this way because some Divine, All-knowing being told you to. It's not what motivates me but I can respect it.
 
Last edited:
Re:
"People like that would prefer it be illegal to even drink coffee, thinking laws will make people closer to Christ."

Ironic isn't it, considering that it's Mormon doctrine that Lucifer's original idea was to force everyone to be righteous, thus guaranteeing that everyone would make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Perhaps there are some Mormons today who would agree with Lucifer's plan?
 
Re:


Ironic isn't it, considering that it's Mormon doctrine that Lucifer's original idea was to force everyone to be righteous, thus guaranteeing that everyone would make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Perhaps there are some Mormons today who would agree with Lucifer's plan?

Yep, I always found that really ironic also.
 
I could have put I don't know but that doesn't really explain my way of thinking.
I hope and believe there is an energy that connects us. Is that a "god" no not really but god is really just a word so I guess it could be.

I really do hope there is an after life. Does it matter if it's true or not? No but it makes me hope. To be a better person? Nope but because there are people I miss terribly.
Why do I feel I should try to be a good person has nothing to do with a god or heaven but because I was born and well that is a miracle so I better do well and the best I can with my life.

I guess though no one really knows. It's all belief and faith. Even science isn't always right. What we do know is what "we" see. But that means different things to different people.
 
Re:
"I really do hope there is an afterlife ... because there are people I miss terribly."

Amen to that.

Re:
"Even science isn't always right."

Science is in fact repeatedly wrong. The big thing it's got going for it is the scientific method -- a way to thoroughly vet every new idea before calling it a working theory -- and even allowing for a good chance that any theory can be overturned, no matter how long it's been in use. New experiments can always overturn old experiments if they bring new information to light.

But then I trust a lot of what I hear by word of mouth -- I mean I don't put scientific theories through rigorous tests myself. I tend to trust the articles I read in scientific magazines, stuff like that. So relying on my physical senses does involve a certain kind of faith.
 
Well, I think InsaneMystic's position is that we don't *know* the two people exist ... For all we know, it could be just one person imagining the existence of a second person. And, the one person could be nothing more than brain in a vat. So it's possible that even the experiment doesn't exist (i.e., didn't happen, wasn't really conducted). It could all be a grand illusion.
I once had the great pleasure of hearing Brugh Joy speak in NYC (and when I met him afterwards, I experienced a few mind-blowing seconds of an out-of-body experience when we hugged! And I wasn't high, I promise!)... anyway - at the talk, I'll never forget one thing he said:

"For all we know, all of us on this planet could just be part of the ejaculate of some greater being."​

Hahahaha.

Next stop, Whoville.
 
There is a "God" and I'm not it....

but seriously.. I am Wiccan. Mother Earth, Nature Incarnate, the Goddess.

She is there, guiding me.
 
But then I trust a lot of what I hear by word of mouth -- I mean I don't put scientific theories through rigorous tests myself. I tend to trust the articles I read in scientific magazines, stuff like that. So relying on my physical senses does involve a certain kind of faith.

I do not equate trust and faith, though. Trust, to me, involved knowledge of a person, a process, and frequent reassurance that something is so (like the sun coming up, like your partner coming home from work every day). Faith is more of a shot in the dark-- believe this unbelievable thing (a god speaking from a bush, a virgin birth, a human man who is a god, resurrection of the body) and you will get goodies.
 
"For all we know, all of us on this planet could just be part of the ejaculate of some greater being."​

Hahahaha.

Next stop, Whoville.

The Egyptian creation myth imagines the first (intersexed) god Atum masturbating to create two more gods (of air and moisture). Maybe it is embarrassing to people of our traditions. A god having sex? Oh noes! We are used to the idea that a sexless Yahweh/El just spoke the world into being, but I think a sexual act makes pretty good sense, actually.
 
Higher powers

Longer answer: I don't personally have any evidence that any higher power exists (or doesn't).
WTF!!! So like what? Did the principle give you a pass to get out of Algebra? Did you have to show him what was in your bra to get the pass?

Two to the second power is something and four the, hang on I have to ask mommy if I can untie my shoes, I ran out of fingers. Crap, she said, no, but I'm pretty sure there's like when they put those little number smaller next to the big numbers it is all about higher powers.

And what about Austin Powers?

I, myself, am responsible for my words, thoughts, and actions. Through my observations the world is a "better" place if we all behave in ways that are "good" rather than "bad".
Now, go check the garden of Eden part about fruit.

Dividing into good and evil big no no.

Now I suspect that particular book might have had some ghost writing involved, but I bet you are one of Those People who don't Believe in ghosts.

The approval of a "magical sky wizard" would be fine, but is NOT necessary.

But is he wearing "approved" underwear under the flowing robes? By approved I mean official sponsored underwear made by children under the age of six (average age of the end of innocence) and plucked from their broken fingers After the building collapsed on them

None of that lefty commie pinko union stuff, you know we got morals and American values to uphold.

PS. If pressed for terminology I will say that I am a "little a" agnostic or "secular buddhist"...

Are small a agnostics the people who used to worship Nixon/Agnew, before the Great Fall of the right and righteous?
 
Gods sex

The Egyptian creation myth imagines the first (intersexed) god Atum masturbating to create two more gods (of air and moisture). Maybe it is embarrassing to people of our traditions. A god having sex? Oh noes! We are used to the idea that a sexless Yahweh/El just spoke the world into being, but I think a sexual act makes pretty good sense, actually.

Wadaya mean? I get woman screaming, "oh God yes! Oh god more!"

God told me hisself I am his gift to women.

But I would like to know more about the air moisture thing while Jacking off.
Is it related to the Holy Book that told about Jack and Jill running up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. But they left out what happened to the pail of water.
 
Science

Science is in fact repeatedly wrong.

Science is always right.

It is those pseudo-scientists, many taking money under the exam table who are wrong.
 
Back
Top