NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought I'd share my views with you all. I am an Atheist so if I say anything which causes legitimate offence, then I apologise.

What strikes me as strange is why people should want to believe in a god. What is a god? By that I don’t mean what the bible says, or any religious activists. I would ask them the same question. What is this god you believe in. It’s nature is ephemeral, it has no substance, it cannot be measured, in keeping with all available knowledge, it does not exist.

When people profess a belief in god, they are being intellectually lazy (I think) because I have never encountered anyone who can say with certainty, what is the nature of the thing they believe in. I have often been told, we are created in the image of god, therefore god is seen to have human qualities, yet again there is no evidence to say this. The bible and other religious works are not evidence, just belief and faith.

We anthropomorphise this god into a reflection of ourselves and imbue it with a male personality and provide it with status. In the christian belief, it’s the Lord God, so it’s clear we want an authority figure who is more powerful than ourselves. This “Lord” decides all that is ethical and moral (at least that’s what it’s followers claim). This allows everyone to make their mistakes, plead remorse and be accepted in the eyes of their god again. It’s just like children knowing that however bad they’ve been “daddy” will forgive them, if their really sorry.

Also, given that god is the arbiter of morality and proper behaviour, then people who believe in this do not have to question more abstract concepts. Consider that the garden of Eden has it’s antithesis where Lucifer is the one who is truly looking after mankind by offering knowledge instead of faith. This surely makes clear that religion seeks not to enlighten peoples minds but to control them..

No one today would seriously suggest that a belief in the Greek, Roman or Norse Pantheon is valid. Who believes in Odin, Zeus or Jupiter, yet people will readily subscribe to a belief which sees god as a human personality.

I hope this has not caused unnecessary offence to anyone but I always think it’s better to question than to just accept.. If anything equivalent to god exists, I think it has nothing in common with any established religious belief and as a result, people who truly believe in this abstract of religious belief, owe it to themselves to really question what it is they believe in.

Please note, this is intended for a serious discussion, if you want to say anything offensive or abusive, please don’t post it here.

no i dont think you have it right
people feel a link to the universe that cant be satisified any other way but through a belief in god/gods. from the first time we looked up and saw the stars we looked for an explanation of the wonders of the universe.
way before any organized religion, people buried their dead. before we had a concept of god we felt the need to do right by our "souls"

our own religious beliefs fill a spot in our psyche.
for some people its a source of comfort or wonder
for some its a good reason to behave in a civilized manor
for some people they just can't see a point to a meaningless universe.
seems very human to me

but then im an athiest too so i cant find a reason to believe in any particular religion just because it might make me sleep better at night

i envy people who can believe without worrying about all the inconsistancies that make my belief impossible.

but religion goes beyond the rational and to try to limit it to just the rational misses the point.

people have always been religious, its only the religion that changes

its gotta mean something

God cannot be defined beyond: god is simply all things.

and yes I think there is an underlying consciousness to the All.

Also I don't think that religion and spirituality are the same things.
I am deeply spiritual but not the least bit religious.

I disgree majorly with calling god a "He" or to purport that one knows at all what god may want.

I thought I'd share my views with you all. I am an Atheist so if I say anything which causes legitimate offence, then I apologise.

Never apologize for your views, so long as you come by them honestly and do not try and force them on others without reason. One of the things that makes us human is our ability to have views based on reason as well as other sources. They're yours and you're more than entitled to them just as I am entitled to my own. :D


What strikes me as strange is why people should want to believe in a god. What is a god? By that I don’t mean what the bible says, or any religious activists. I would ask them the same question. What is this god you believe in. It’s nature is ephemeral, it has no substance, it cannot be measured, in keeping with all available knowledge, it does not exist.

This is interesting. Rationally, you have a point. There is no rational reason to believe in a personified "god". There are hints, intuitions and, the most squirmy of all justifications, "feelings," but there is no quantifiable proof that says, "Because this is so, God must exist." However, I think you're making an assumption as to what you are questioning people on.


When people profess a belief in god, they are being intellectually lazy (I think) because I have never encountered anyone who can say with certainty, what is the nature of the thing they believe in. I have often been told, we are created in the image of god, therefore god is seen to have human qualities, yet again there is no evidence to say this. The bible and other religious works are not evidence, just belief and faith.

True again. The Bible is no more evidenciary than the Koran, the Torah or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It is a work that may or may not have been divinely inspired and, even if it was, has been in the hands of man for nearly two thousand years. Errors, purposeful or otherwise, are bound to have crept in.

Of course, the question itself is conflicted in a way. One of the very basic concepts of divinity is that it be beyond mortal knowing. God, as it is observed in most societies that worship one or more, is greater than a human mind can understand and operates with motives and reasoning that we can not comprehend. I'm not necessarily saying this excuses "intellectual laziness," but it does argue why no one can give a clear concept of "God," because he is mostly beyond our perception. Sort of like the old story of the three blind men in a dark room trying to identify an elephant. Certain basic findings may be partially correct, but do to limitations of perception, the entire thing can not be recognized or correctly quantified.

For myself, I don't believe that I've arrived at my faith via "intellectual laziness." I don't believe in a personified God, an old man with a long white beard sitting up among the clouds, alternately dispensing cosmic justice and thunderbolts either at his whim or at the entrities of those who follow him. I do believe a part of God, a part that breaks the peceptive surface of everyday existance, is an underlying unity of spirit that people seem to possess. As a Quaker, I belive in "That of God" in all of us and that, if you are very quiet, you can commune with this network. God is more of a trancendent governing principle rather than an actual being, I guess would be one way to describe what I believe I know of it. In order to better focus on exploring my connection with this principle and due to my own social conditioning, I find it easiest to frame God in Judeo-Christian terms. Which isn't to say that Christians have the only way of approaching God or that Christianity is the One True Religion. My concept of God renders those terms meaningless. It is, though, the one school of thought through which I can connect with whatever part of God I have access to and analyaze that connection and it's implications in terms that I can understand and deal with.

I'm working on a metaphor for what I feel God to be. It's incomplete and doesn't completely explain it, but I find it helps give me a general idea. God is pure white light containing an infinity of wavelengths and it shines on the prisim of reality. The light which is God is seperated into it's components and cast upon us. Given our limited range of perception, we can only see a few of the infinite number of wavelengths. Even further, not everyone can perceve the same set of wavelengths. However, we frequently make the mistake of thinking all that we see is all that there is and this leads to conflict.


We anthropomorphise this god into a reflection of ourselves and imbue it with a male personality and provide it with status. In the christian belief, it’s the Lord God, so it’s clear we want an authority figure who is more powerful than ourselves. This “Lord” decides all that is ethical and moral (at least that’s what it’s followers claim). This allows everyone to make their mistakes, plead remorse and be accepted in the eyes of their god again. It’s just like children knowing that however bad they’ve been “daddy” will forgive them, if their really sorry.

Again, though, you are referring to one very limiting type of conceptualization of God. It may be a very popular type and your arguments about it's existance may be correct, as far as they go, but it does nothing to refute the existance of God in a vaster scope. Not every theist believes in a personified God or, even if they do, that this "God" is in any way interested in us in a way we can comprehend.

Additionally, it's an obvious sociological fact that religion is used, in my opinion incorrectly, as a form of societal control. Perhaps all that religion is in a physical sense, is a seeking of man to provide order to his universe and understanding of his place in it and that "worship" of God via religion is as silly as a flea "worshiping" the animal it lives on. People tend to take what they need from God and, more to the point, religion. For example, early Jews forming the Christian faith needed to believe that, even though they were on the bottom rung of the social ladder in many societies, there would be atonement for the wrongs done to them. They needed to believe in a vengeful God who had chosen them as his favorite people and would smite their enemies. They needed to believe in this in order to endure what was sometimes a horribly cruel and arbitrary existance. I would argue that this might be an aspect of God, but in no way the whole. Other societies and entire faiths, based on their needs, conceptualize God as best suits them, interpolating what is useful and attributing it to God while ignoring that which doesn't fit.


Also, given that god is the arbiter of morality and proper behaviour, then people who believe in this do not have to question more abstract concepts. Consider that the garden of Eden has it’s antithesis where Lucifer is the one who is truly looking after mankind by offering knowledge instead of faith. This surely makes clear that religion seeks not to enlighten peoples minds but to control them..

Well, yes, that's certainly one way to look at it and it is exactly why many people find comfort in religion and God. You can embrace a theisim with innocence and take it all part and parcle, thereby absolving yourself of having to make higher abstract judgements on your own. It's easier to take orders and follow rules than it is to make them and then be honest about their "rightness". Again, though, you are referring to a narrow subset of theistic belief and ignoring the wider applications that trancend on specific belief system or theology. In my own experience, and that's all I can speak to, I have discovered that people who tend to truly believe in their moral structures have created those moral structures for themselves and then, assuming they feel the need, have gravitated to belief systems which most closely coincide with their own strong impressions of "right" and "wrong". They've questioned and found their own answers and some of them have been satisfied and remain completely happy, healthy non-theists who have a general sense of wonder at the world but don't see a need for any higher explanation. Others have looked on, sound in their own created morality but unsatisfied without a "higher explanation," and found belief systems that enable them, with faith and an understanding that there will be no provable answers until the end of this life, to examine possible higher connections. Neither path is quantitatively better than the other and both paths have much in common. Simply, it's a choice that one makes based on how one's mind works and, therefore, it's a highly personalized journey that shouldn't be lumped into generalities and dismissed out of hand. No one really knows anyone else's experiences so no one can really say who has the right of it.

The mistake comes in not allowing others to take the journey for themselves or trying to say that their answers are less valid based solely on your own experience. Or in not ever taking that journey in the first place and accepting a handed down set of rules and dictoms that you follow for no other reason than you've been told you must or you're afraid not to. These all produce very brittle world views that lead to conflict and violence because they are not fully thought out positions and, in order to exist, must avoid all other contrary world views which they can not stand against. For example, let me use two posters on this board. I disagree with Bottle regarding religion, but I would in no way, shape or form ever think that she is "wrong" in her findings and believe her to be an incredibly moral person who, through careful introspection and questioning as well as listening to the way she "works", has found her answers and tries, in her own way, to help others find theirs. I would like to think that, if she does think of me, that she doesn't look down on me for having found a different set of answers based on my own process of questioning, even though she may not agree with those answers herself. Neither one of us is "better" than the other because we have both come to our conclusions honestly and are willing to allow others to have viewpoints for themselves as they do not intrinsically invalidate our own searches. We can discuss our findings and our reasons behind them like adults, not having to shout at each other because we can't bear the very idea that the other might have the right of it. We're both willing, I think, on some level, to admit that we might be wrong, but that everything we have observed and experienced up to this point has led us to answers which seem right by our individual standards. On the other hand, an older poster to these boards, Cartese, had absolutely no respect for anyone with a view different from his. He was adamant in his belief that not only was religion unfounded supersition, but that it was actually detremental to society and he argued both long and loud against anyone who thought differently. In the end, it became hard to respect his opinions because he granted no one else that respect, the simple respect one gives another human being who has managed to stay alive long enough to form their own opinions and ask their own questions. His athiesim seemed to be not so much a reaction to his own search and existance, but a prolonged and violent attack on anyone who was different than him. In a way, it was no better than the basest form of religious zealotry. There was no discussing issues with him because he believed himself to be so far beyond the rest of us that it was comical. I would argue (perhaps unfairly) that his loud denunciation of all other belief systems, even ones that didn't directly affect him, indicate that his answers were not nearly as absolute as he would have liked them to be. Instead of coming to a discussion with a viewpoint, he came to it with "The Truth" and when anyone claims to have "The Truth", you'd be wise to be wary of them. He no longer posts here (at least under that name), but I sometimes miss him because he reminded me very much of myself when I was going through a non-theisim period. His arguments were very similar to the ones I came up with and endorsed. Not to say that he would eventually have embraced a theisim as I have. Who knows where his journey will lead him? But it was interesting to watch and see the similarities and to know that, at least with me, my atheisim was less a statement of belief and more an attack on things I didn't want to recognize.


No one today would seriously suggest that a belief in the Greek, Roman or Norse Pantheon is valid. Who believes in Odin, Zeus or Jupiter, yet people will readily subscribe to a belief which sees god as a human personality.

This isn't completely true and is an assumption. There are many Pagans out there who worship one or more of these Gods. Simply because they may not be "mainstream" is not reason to completely discount them. Those particular pantheons, like Christianity, represent a certain face of God that people may use to more comfortably deal with the abstraction that is the reality of whatever God truly is. Someone may feel more comfortable and, more importantly, more focused praying to multiple deities, each one with a specific sphere of influence, than to trying to comprehend a direct link through a single source. One is not intrinsically more correct than the other and they all may serve no more purpose than what would be accomplished by an hour's silent meditation. But the symbology is comfortable and understandable and speaks to people on a certain level for whatever reasons and this gives them the room to manover that they need to interact with whatever divinity may be out there.


I hope this has not caused unnecessary offence to anyone but I always think it’s better to question than to just accept.

I completely agree. I also think it's important to understand that not everyone will answer the same question in the same way and that neither answer needs to be "wrong" for them both to be "right".


If anything equivalent to god exists, I think it has nothing in common with any established religious belief and as a result, people who truly believe in this abstract of religious belief, owe it to themselves to really question what it is they believe in.

I couldn't agree more. One's spritual foundations must be errected on individual questioning and introspection as well as connection and exploration of the outside world. Only when one really knows why one believes what one believes can one truly claim to believe it and come to a discussion of belief honestly, openly and, most importantly, without fear.

To put it short and simple:
God is a being created by man to have a drive and a reason to be virtuous. Nothing more, nothing less.

To put it short and simple:
God is a being created by man to have a drive and a reason to be virtuous. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think god is a just a persoanlized ideal, whatever we make of god, god will be. I'm an agnostic, so I think there is a higher power out there, but it cannot be defined within human terms, and it is not a set principle, such as the christian god. So, for me, the idea of god is found in gaia, the 'mother' earth. For christians, it is prolly the god of the bible, for muslims, Allah, for buddhists, they find divinity within buddha and meditation. Depending on who you ask, the definition of god wil always be different. I like nature, so that is where I find myself most at peace, when I am hiking or backpacking with some friends. For you, it might be the absense that defines god, or, it may be god is just hangin with your friends. God is personal to the person, so whatever the person decides as 'god' is god for that person.

I think god is a just a persoanlized ideal, whatever we make of god, god will be. I'm an agnostic, so I think there is a higher power out there, but it cannot be defined within human terms, and it is not a set principle, such as the christian god. So, for me, the idea of god is found in gaia, the 'mother' earth. For christians, it is prolly the god of the bible, for muslims, Allah, for buddhists, they find divinity within buddha and meditation. Depending on who you ask, the definition of god wil always be different. I like nature, so that is where I find myself most at peace, when I am hiking or backpacking with some friends. For you, it might be the absense that defines god, or, it may be god is just hangin with your friends. God is personal to the person, so whatever the person decides as 'god' is god for that person.

what a thoughtful post Berkylvania.

there is more to religion than what you were taught as a kid and certainly way more sophisticated beliefs that those depicted on TV
especially the televangilists!

you really do need to give deep thought to your beliefs if you are going to come to something that is going to reflect your inner self. some people just question certain things they were taught as kids "mommy when i die and go to heaven will i get to pick whatever color wings i want?"
you dont become an angel in heaven no matter what "highway to heaven" may have taught you.
some people need to go right down to the bare bones and question the existence of god altogether
sometimes its a matter of finding the right minister or the right denomination.

it not enough to just say THERE IS NO GOD because you find your parents beliefs ridiculous. you have to come to a positive understanding of the universe that you can live with. even if it turns out to be atheism

once you have a firm undertanding of why you believe that, and you really DO believe it, you have no real problem with billions of other people believing in god. it doesnt make them stupid or deluded, it just reflects their understanding of the universe.

i have no more problem with differing religious beliefs than i do with differing political beliefs. people come from different points of view. no big deal
well cept for those who think that god wants them to go kill other people or deny them their civil rights. or those who think that god takes sides in sporting events...

I think no one knows what or who God is, or the form he takes. I believe there is a God, and I believed he revealed himself to one person, told them he exsisted, and thus religion was formed. For until we die, if there is an afterlife, which I think there is, we won't know if God exsists, and even then, we might not know for God will be to busy with other matters than us people sitting on clouds eating and drinking and being merry! :)

I think no one knows what or who God is, or the form he takes. I believe there is a God, and I believed he revealed himself to one person, told them he exsisted, and thus religion was formed. For until we die, if there is an afterlife, which I think there is, we won't know if God exsists, and even then, we might not know for God will be to busy with other matters than us people sitting on clouds eating and drinking and being merry! :)

how could a god ever be busy?

I think no one knows what or who God is, or the form he takes. I believe there is a God, and I believed he revealed himself to one person, told them he exsisted, and thus religion was formed. For until we die, if there is an afterlife, which I think there is, we won't know if God exsists, and even then, we might not know for God will be to busy with other matters than us people sitting on clouds eating and drinking and being merry! :)

how could a god ever be busy?

Oh, you know. He's doing lunch, has several movie deals in production and then, when he takes time to do autographs for his fans, well, his day fills up quite nicely. I wonder who his PA is? :lol:

I think no one knows what or who God is, or the form he takes. I believe there is a God, and I believed he revealed himself to one person, told them he exsisted, and thus religion was formed. For until we die, if there is an afterlife, which I think there is, we won't know if God exsists, and even then, we might not know for God will be to busy with other matters than us people sitting on clouds eating and drinking and being merry! :)

how could a god ever be busy?

Oh, you know. He's doing lunch, has several movie deals in production and then, when he takes time to do autographs for his fans, well, his day fills up quite nicely. I wonder who his PA is? :lol:

I wonder whom he PA is, maybe I could be his PA. New Cyprus AKA God's PA. God is busy, for, well, look around at all the Earth. And for all we know the Universe could be filled with other crazy beings like us, except for without all the Green House Gases ( :shock: )

God is Nature.

God is IN and IS everything.

God is an explanatory metaphysical principle for our Reality.

God is nothing more.

The God-Man of religion does not exist.

He does not NEED to exist.

He cannot exist.

God is Nature.

God is IN and IS everything.

God is an explanatory metaphysical principle for our Reality.

God is nothing more.

The God-Man of religion does not exist.

He does not NEED to exist.

He cannot exist.

I'd agree with the first three things you said and wonder why you felt the need to include the rest.

God is Nature.

God is IN and IS everything.

God is an explanatory metaphysical principle for our Reality.

God is nothing more.

The God-Man of religion does not exist.

He does not NEED to exist.

He cannot exist.

I'd agree with the first three things you said and wonder why you felt the need to include the rest.

Qualifying statements for theists...

I am GOd ofcourse...

actually, only arrogant screwballs are athiests because noone can really prove that god doesnt exist. its beyond the human capability at the moment.

<------- Agnostic

What strikes me as strange is why people should want to believe in a god. What is a god? By that I don’t mean what the bible says, or any religious activists. I would ask them the same question. What is this god you believe in. It’s nature is ephemeral, it has no substance, it cannot be measured, in keeping with all available knowledge, it does not exist. I understand the logic, but look at it another way. Many religions, including most Greek and Roman religions, had a god that was creating reflections of their own images, on a much tinier format. So, if you place yourself in god's role - would you try to contact your creation? If so, how does a normal adult human, for example, talk to a baby to make it understand? You know far more and it would take a long time to try to teach it what you it to know. A baby doesn't understand its own universe much less what the adult is, other than a caregiver - nothing more. Take all religions as a whole, and you see that the similar message of 'just get along with each other and try to get through it together' seems to run through them as the 'god message'. Using that type of logic, it is difficult for me not to see a theme in all of human history (even pre-history) from something larger than what we understand, but know exists.

I am GOd ofcourse...

actually, only arrogant screwballs are athiests because noone can really prove that god doesnt exist. its beyond the human capability at the moment.

<------- Agnostic

Yes, and so ?

Can anybody prove that He exists ?

(The thread was cool until now so stop flaming around)

I am GOd ofcourse...

actually, only arrogant screwballs are athiests because noone can really prove that god doesnt exist. its beyond the human capability at the moment.

<------- Agnostic

Yes, and so ?

Can anybody prove that He exists ?

(The thread was cool until now so stop flaming around)

that was the whole point; atheism is just as much based on faith as religion, since you can't prove either way. we can't ever prove that God does exist, just like we can't ever prove he/she/it doesn't. the problem with atheists is that they are rarely willing to admit they are functioning on faith, while at least the religious people are willing to be open about that.

I suspect that the whole idea of God is a projection of man's ideal of man himself.

To put it short and simple:
God is a being created by man to have a drive and a reason to be virtuous. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree.

that was the whole point; atheism is just as much based on faith as religion, since you can't prove either way. we can't ever prove that God does exist, just like we can't ever prove he/she/it doesn't. the problem with atheists is that they are rarely willing to admit they are functioning on faith, while at least the religious people are willing to be open about that.

well actually its based on LACK of faith
i find the "god must exist because how else did the universe get started?" argument for faith the weakest one.

if one accepts the idea that some being had to start it all, what does that imply about what i should believe about that being?

its a huge step from someone starting the big bang a few billion years ago to accepting jesus christ as my personal lord and savior
or sacrificing virgins to zuuul or sweeping the ground in front of me as i walk lest i step on a recently reincarnated relative.

there isnt even a way to guarantee that ones specific christian beliefs are correct enough to please "god". most christians sects believe that certain other demonimations are so wrong in their beliefs that they have NO chance of going to heaven.

im a very "so what does that mean about how i should live my life" kind of person
IF there was some being who started the universe, WTF does "he" want from us? there is no way to know so it seems to me that either "he" doesnt exist or "he" just doesnt care about it.
if it doesnt matter to "him" it doesnt matter to me
therefore i am an athiest

that was the whole point; atheism is just as much based on faith as religion, since you can't prove either way. we can't ever prove that God does exist, just like we can't ever prove he/she/it doesn't. the problem with atheists is that they are rarely willing to admit they are functioning on faith, while at least the religious people are willing to be open about that.

well actually its based on LACK of faith

no, it's not. if you believe there is no God then you are having faith in that, because there is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. the only way you can not have faith is to be agnostic, to believe that we don't know either way.

that was the whole point; atheism is just as much based on faith as religion, since you can't prove either way. we can't ever prove that God does exist, just like we can't ever prove he/she/it doesn't. the problem with atheists is that they are rarely willing to admit they are functioning on faith, while at least the religious people are willing to be open about that.

well actually its based on LACK of faith

no, it's not. if you believe there is no God then you are having faith in that, because there is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. the only way you can not have faith is to be agnostic, to believe that we don't know either way.

Atheism only works as a faith if the atheists in question go around actively believing in the non-existence of one or more gods (which, admittedly, some militant atheists do -- I've done it myself from time to time, usually when provoked :) ). But mostly it's an absence of belief. So I don't think it can be said to be a faith; more of an opinion, which in my case I'm willing to revise should any evidence come to light. But that doesn't make me an agnostic. For historical reasons the debate about the existence or non-existence of God has assumed an unwarranted importance, where various opinions attract special labels. I don't believe in fairies, but there isn't a special name for that. Should any evidence for the existence of fairires come up, I'm prepared to revise my position there, too. The world is full of supposed entities with no evidence for their existence, and to me God is just one more. I'm a skeptic, that's all.

Belief in god is indisputably irrational (which is not to say "wrong"). Theologians have tried to logically prove the existence of god, for example St Anselm. But his "ontological proof" -- and even the refinemed version proposed by Godel -- is logically flawed, as it relies on special and unprovable assumptions. St Augustine was less blinded by the need for rational proof, stating that "one cannot reach God through reason alone". I suppose you could argue that logically, there is no logical proof for the existence of God (at the moment), because if there was, logical, rational people would have accepted the arguments and the issue wouldn't arise.

In discussing this with other people (some on this forum), it appears to me that the basis for many individuals' beliefs is found in personal religious experience. I think it's more likely that these religious experiences have their root in a physiological mechanism in their brains, but that is only my belief and doesn't invalidate their experiences.

Blaise Pascal constructed an argument as to why belief in God was better than non-belief, which can be represented as a matrix, where "Belief in God" produced either a status quo result (where God does not exist) or a positive (where God does exist). Non-belief produces a status quo for a non-existent God too, but produces a negative where God does exist. Therefore, he argued, it is better to believe than not.

Personally I think this is too bound up with Judeo-Christian ideas of a judgemental God, who punishes as well as rewards. In my opinion, a Supreme Being who punishes his mortal and fallible creations isn't worthy of worship or belief. The only sort of God I would tolerate would be one of literally infinite love and compassion; one who could take, say, Hitler, unrepentant and frothing at the mouth, and forgive and love him. That, surely, would be what infinite love is all about. So it doesn't matter whether I believe in God or not: the only one I'll have anything to do with wouldn't care whether I believed in it or not.

Such a being would be a nice idea, although I'd still want to have a good reason why someone like GW Bush gets to live a long life in pampered luxury, while so many others die half way through a short and miserable childhood. "Free will" doesn't cut it as an excuse, I'm afraid. But I admit such an afterlife would be something to hope for. I strongly suspect, though, that after life comes non-existence, and that this brief flicker is all we get. The universe looks random, and devoid of good or evil except that which we make for ourselves. If it looks like a random universe, and quacks like a random universe -- then it's probably a random universe, and the concept of the Divine just a protracted exercise in whistling in the dark.

that was the whole point; atheism is just as much based on faith as religion, since you can't prove either way. we can't ever prove that God does exist, just like we can't ever prove he/she/it doesn't. the problem with atheists is that they are rarely willing to admit they are functioning on faith, while at least the religious people are willing to be open about that.

well actually its based on LACK of faith

no, it's not. if you believe there is no God then you are having faith in that, because there is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. the only way you can not have faith is to be agnostic, to believe that we don't know either way.

Atheism only works as a faith if the atheists in question go around actively believing in the non-existence of one or more gods (which, admittedly, some militant atheists do -- I've done it myself from time to time, usually when provoked :) ). But mostly it's an absence of belief. So I don't think it can be said to be a faith; more of an opinion, which in my case I'm willing to revise should any evidence come to light. But that doesn't make me an agnostic. For historical reasons the debate about the existence or non-existence of God has assumed an unwarranted importance, where various opinions attract special labels. I don't believe in fairies, but there isn't a special name for that. Should any evidence for the existence of fairires come up, I'm prepared to revise my position there, too. The world is full of supposed entities with no evidence for their existence, and to me God is just one more. I'm a skeptic, that's all.

Belief in god is indisputably irrational (which is not to say "wrong"). Theologians have tried to logically prove the existence of god, for example St Anselm. But his "ontological proof" -- and even the refinemed version proposed by Godel -- is logically flawed, as it relies on special and unprovable assumptions. St Augustine was less blinded by the need for rational proof, stating that "one cannot reach God through reason alone". I suppose you could argue that logically, there is no logical proof for the existence of God (at the moment), because if there was, logical, rational people would have accepted the arguments and the issue wouldn't arise.

In discussing this with other people (some on this forum), it appears to me that the basis for many individuals' beliefs is found in personal religious experience. I think it's more likely that these religious experiences have their root in a physiological mechanism in their brains, but that is only my belief and doesn't invalidate their experiences.

Blaise Pascal constructed an argument as to why belief in God was better than non-belief, which can be represented as a matrix, where "Belief in God" produced either a status quo result (where God does not exist) or a positive (where God does exist). Non-belief produces a status quo for a non-existent God too, but produces a negative where God does exist. Therefore, he argued, it is better to believe than not.

Personally I think this is too bound up with Judeo-Christian ideas of a judgemental God, who punishes as well as rewards. In my opinion, a Supreme Being who punishes his mortal and fallible creations isn't worthy of worship or belief. The only sort of God I would tolerate would be one of literally infinite love and compassion; one who could take, say, Hitler, unrepentant and frothing at the mouth, and forgive and love him. That, surely, would be what infinite love is all about. So it doesn't matter whether I believe in God or not: the only one I'll have anything to do with wouldn't care whether I believed in it or not.

Such a being would be a nice idea, although I'd still want to have a good reason why someone like GW Bush gets to live a long life in pampered luxury, while so many others die half way through a short and miserable childhood. "Free will" doesn't cut it as an excuse, I'm afraid. But I admit such an afterlife would be something to hope for. I strongly suspect, though, that after life comes non-existence, and that this brief flicker is all we get. The universe looks random, and devoid of good or evil except that which we make for ourselves. If it looks like a random universe, and quacks like a random universe -- then it's probably a random universe, and the concept of the Divine just a protracted exercise in whistling in the dark.

what you were describing is agnosticism, not atheism. atheism is believing in the non-existence of God, to rephrase slightly, while agnosticism is the belief that we don't know either way, that there is no (good) reason to believe in God, or that it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a God.

what you were describing is agnosticism, not atheism. atheism is believing in the non-existence of God, to rephrase slightly, while agnosticism is the belief that we don't know either way, that there is no (good) reason to believe in God, or that it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a God.

Hmm... I don't see the need for the labels, or for the precise distinctions, for that matter. I don't have a completely open mind on the existence or otherwise of God: at the moment, I judge it to be a claim with no evidence. I grant it the same weight as I grant the claim that there are fairies living at the bottom of the garden, i.e. none at all. So I don't believe in God. That's not an opinion based on faith, though; it's an opinion based on the lack of any evidence FOR God. In the same vein my non-belief in fairies, or in tiny purple hippos that live in the central heating, is not based on faith. But should any evidence arise, I'm prepared to change my mind. Insisting otherwise in the face of hard evidence would be irrational. If someone were to fish around in my hot-water tank and show me the purple hippos, I'd be prepred to believe in them. Although I'd have myself checked out by a psychiatrist first, though, since the theorem that I was stone crazy would still be more likely than the theorem that there were tiny purple hippos living in the central heating.

If I had to pick a label for myself, I suppose I'd go for "atheist", since I am without a religion and I feel it's a more positive statement than "agnostic". I am as confident in my belief that there is no God as I am in my belief that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. OK, to that extent it is "based on faith", but then so is my opinion that I have been alive for 36 years and have not just this moment been summoned into existence in a pre-formed universe with all my memories implanted. There comes a point where absense of evidence is so nearly the same as evidence of absense as to make very little difference.

When did you decide to become an atheist?

what you were describing is agnosticism, not atheism. atheism is believing in the non-existence of God, to rephrase slightly, while agnosticism is the belief that we don't know either way, that there is no (good) reason to believe in God, or that it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a God.

Hmm... I don't see the need for the labels, or for the precise distinctions, for that matter. I don't have a completely open mind on the existence or otherwise of God: at the moment, I judge it to be a claim with no evidence. I grant it the same weight as I grant the claim that there are fairies living at the bottom of the garden, i.e. none at all. So I don't believe in God. That's not an opinion based on faith, though; it's an opinion based on the lack of any evidence FOR God. In the same vein my non-belief in fairies, or in tiny purple hippos that live in the central heating, is not based on faith. But should any evidence arise, I'm prepared to change my mind. Insisting otherwise in the face of hard evidence would be irrational. If someone were to fish around in my hot-water tank and show me the purple hippos, I'd be prepred to believe in them. Although I'd have myself checked out by a psychiatrist first, though, since the theorem that I was stone crazy would still be more likely than the theorem that there were tiny purple hippos living in the central heating.

If I had to pick a label for myself, I suppose I'd go for "atheist", since I am without a religion and I feel it's a more positive statement than "agnostic". I am as confident in my belief that there is no God as I am in my belief that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. OK, to that extent it is "based on faith", but then so is my opinion that I have been alive for 36 years and have not just this moment been summoned into existence in a pre-formed universe with all my memories implanted. There comes a point where absense of evidence is so nearly the same as evidence of absense as to make very little difference.

i don't see why there is so much resistence to using correct terminology. refering to somebody as an atheist or an agnostic is simply descriptive, and misusing the terms only leads to confusion...if you want to call yourself an atheist that's fine, but i don't see why you would do that if you are actually an agnostic; it seems that if terms really aren't important to you then you would use the correct ones because, well, why not?

i don't see why there is so much resistence to using correct terminology. refering to somebody as an atheist or an agnostic is simply descriptive, and misusing the terms only leads to confusion...if you want to call yourself an atheist that's fine, but i don't see why you would do that if you are actually an agnostic; it seems that if terms really aren't important to you then you would use the correct ones because, well, why not?

I think I disagree with you about what is the "correct term". "A-theist" is literally "without religion" -- which I feel describes myself -- whereas "a-gnostic" is "without revelation". I feel that "agnostic" is a description of someone waiting for a flash of illumination: sitting on the fence, maybe, but looking at least half-expectantly in one direction. That isn't me. Should hard evidence for the existence of God (or fairies, or other miraculous creatures) arise, then I'm prepared to alter my beliefs -- but I'm not expecting any evidence, I'm not looking for any, and I think anyone who is, is wasting their time. I don't think this makes me agnostic, and I don't think it means my opinions are based on "faith", except where such a term is dragged out to the nth degree where everything is based on faith.

But language varies. If you think I'm agnostic, and I think I'm atheist -- what of it? It's only semantics. In any case, I don't feel the issue of God is worth a specific label. I prefer either "not superstitious" or "skeptic".

When did you decide to become an atheist?

If this is addressed to me, I don't really know. I suppose I vaguely believed in God as a child, in the same way that I believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy (although the latter two did at least provide some concrete evidence for their existence). As I got older it all seemed less and less likely, and less and less important. I remember that my first declaration of non-belief was in Primary school, so that would be somewhere before I was 12 -- although how well-formed that opinion was at that point I can't say.

Yea we had this labeling conversation in another thread. same stuff.

I think God is whatever you want it to be. Someone said that earier kind of but im too lazy to go back and see who...sorry. If you dont belive in God then there is no God, if you do then there is. I dont know if there is or isnt so i dont worship anything, it really doesnt matter to me if there is or not. What perplexes me more is how some people have such utter faith in it. I dont understand some people can have such blind faith, its beyond me... o well.

I received this reply as a TG and Raysia asked that i include it which I now do........


The Republic of Raysian Military Tech
Received: 1 day ago Since I am still temporarily banned from the forums (for code-tampering :P) I will answer your "what is God" question here.

First off, i'm assuming you mean who is God, and not what is A god.

In short, God is our Spiritual Father and creator. He created all matter in spiritual and physical (temporal) form.

God is quite literally our Father, in the sense that we are all spiritually his Children.

This life, mortality here on earth, is a Probationary state, to test us, and see who among us is worthy to be in his presence. Christ created this Earth (and quite possibly many others,) and began our physical (mortal) state.

Part of our probationary period on Earth is that we must suffer trials, and be tempted, and sin and repent. Those of us who can hold onto our faith, and endure to the end, and repent (and change) when we slip up or fail, and prove to God that we are righteous people, and are worthy of his presence, will be glorified, and live with him forever... the exceptional ones may even become gods themselves.

As for sin, and hell, and all that... we all sin. A sin is when we fail to live up to God's expectations, and disobey a commandment. Christ, our Elder brother, Savior, and creator of this earth, has stepped in and volunteered to take upon him all of our sins, so that we may have the possibility of eternal life and exhaltation without suffering Hell.

Hell, is a state of at least 1000 years, where those who do not/have not accepted Christ's sacrifice, will pay for their sins, cut off from the spirit... and afterwords, they will be resurrected and Glorified... it's kinda "the hard way" version of the immediate afterlife.

Anyway, after that, we are all resurrected... everyone. Then we are given glory according to our worthiness, our works, and our faith.

personally, I don't think it's that hard to understand, but then, I've been a latter-Day Saint for the last 11 years :)

Ok, well, I hope this helps you understand who I believe God is... if you would, could you please post this in your thread?

Thanks :)
-Raysia

PS, you may return telegram me if you have any more questions.

I thought I'd share my views with you all. I am an Atheist so if I say anything which causes legitimate offence, then I apologise.

Never apologize for your views, so long as you come by them honestly and do not try and force them on others without reason. One of the things that makes us human is our ability to have views based on reason as well as other sources. They're yours and you're more than entitled to them just as I am entitled to my own. :D


What strikes me as strange is why people should want to believe in a god. What is a god? By that I don’t mean what the bible says, or any religious activists. I would ask them the same question. What is this god you believe in. It’s nature is ephemeral, it has no substance, it cannot be measured, in keeping with all available knowledge, it does not exist.

This is interesting. Rationally, you have a point. There is no rational reason to believe in a personified "god". There are hints, intuitions and, the most squirmy of all justifications, "feelings," but there is no quantifiable proof that says, "Because this is so, God must exist." However, I think you're making an assumption as to what you are questioning people on.


When people profess a belief in god, they are being intellectually lazy (I think) because I have never encountered anyone who can say with certainty, what is the nature of the thing they believe in. I have often been told, we are created in the image of god, therefore god is seen to have human qualities, yet again there is no evidence to say this. The bible and other religious works are not evidence, just belief and faith.

True again. The Bible is no more evidenciary than the Koran, the Torah or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It is a work that may or may not have been divinely inspired and, even if it was, has been in the hands of man for nearly two thousand years. Errors, purposeful or otherwise, are bound to have crept in.

Of course, the question itself is conflicted in a way. One of the very basic concepts of divinity is that it be beyond mortal knowing. God, as it is observed in most societies that worship one or more, is greater than a human mind can understand and operates with motives and reasoning that we can not comprehend. I'm not necessarily saying this excuses "intellectual laziness," but it does argue why no one can give a clear concept of "God," because he is mostly beyond our perception. Sort of like the old story of the three blind men in a dark room trying to identify an elephant. Certain basic findings may be partially correct, but do to limitations of perception, the entire thing can not be recognized or correctly quantified.

For myself, I don't believe that I've arrived at my faith via "intellectual laziness." I don't believe in a personified God, an old man with a long white beard sitting up among the clouds, alternately dispensing cosmic justice and thunderbolts either at his whim or at the entrities of those who follow him. I do believe a part of God, a part that breaks the peceptive surface of everyday existance, is an underlying unity of spirit that people seem to possess. As a Quaker, I belive in "That of God" in all of us and that, if you are very quiet, you can commune with this network. God is more of a trancendent governing principle rather than an actual being, I guess would be one way to describe what I believe I know of it. In order to better focus on exploring my connection with this principle and due to my own social conditioning, I find it easiest to frame God in Judeo-Christian terms. Which isn't to say that Christians have the only way of approaching God or that Christianity is the One True Religion. My concept of God renders those terms meaningless. It is, though, the one school of thought through which I can connect with whatever part of God I have access to and analyaze that connection and it's implications in terms that I can understand and deal with.

I'm working on a metaphor for what I feel God to be. It's incomplete and doesn't completely explain it, but I find it helps give me a general idea. God is pure white light containing an infinity of wavelengths and it shines on the prisim of reality. The light which is God is seperated into it's components and cast upon us. Given our limited range of perception, we can only see a few of the infinite number of wavelengths. Even further, not everyone can perceve the same set of wavelengths. However, we frequently make the mistake of thinking all that we see is all that there is and this leads to conflict.


We anthropomorphise this god into a reflection of ourselves and imbue it with a male personality and provide it with status. In the christian belief, it’s the Lord God, so it’s clear we want an authority figure who is more powerful than ourselves. This “Lord” decides all that is ethical and moral (at least that’s what it’s followers claim). This allows everyone to make their mistakes, plead remorse and be accepted in the eyes of their god again. It’s just like children knowing that however bad they’ve been “daddy” will forgive them, if their really sorry.

Again, though, you are referring to one very limiting type of conceptualization of God. It may be a very popular type and your arguments about it's existance may be correct, as far as they go, but it does nothing to refute the existance of God in a vaster scope. Not every theist believes in a personified God or, even if they do, that this "God" is in any way interested in us in a way we can comprehend.

Additionally, it's an obvious sociological fact that religion is used, in my opinion incorrectly, as a form of societal control. Perhaps all that religion is in a physical sense, is a seeking of man to provide order to his universe and understanding of his place in it and that "worship" of God via religion is as silly as a flea "worshiping" the animal it lives on. People tend to take what they need from God and, more to the point, religion. For example, early Jews forming the Christian faith needed to believe that, even though they were on the bottom rung of the social ladder in many societies, there would be atonement for the wrongs done to them. They needed to believe in a vengeful God who had chosen them as his favorite people and would smite their enemies. They needed to believe in this in order to endure what was sometimes a horribly cruel and arbitrary existance. I would argue that this might be an aspect of God, but in no way the whole. Other societies and entire faiths, based on their needs, conceptualize God as best suits them, interpolating what is useful and attributing it to God while ignoring that which doesn't fit.


Also, given that god is the arbiter of morality and proper behaviour, then people who believe in this do not have to question more abstract concepts. Consider that the garden of Eden has it’s antithesis where Lucifer is the one who is truly looking after mankind by offering knowledge instead of faith. This surely makes clear that religion seeks not to enlighten peoples minds but to control them..

Well, yes, that's certainly one way to look at it and it is exactly why many people find comfort in religion and God. You can embrace a theisim with innocence and take it all part and parcle, thereby absolving yourself of having to make higher abstract judgements on your own. It's easier to take orders and follow rules than it is to make them and then be honest about their "rightness". Again, though, you are referring to a narrow subset of theistic belief and ignoring the wider applications that trancend on specific belief system or theology. In my own experience, and that's all I can speak to, I have discovered that people who tend to truly believe in their moral structures have created those moral structures for themselves and then, assuming they feel the need, have gravitated to belief systems which most closely coincide with their own strong impressions of "right" and "wrong". They've questioned and found their own answers and some of them have been satisfied and remain completely happy, healthy non-theists who have a general sense of wonder at the world but don't see a need for any higher explanation. Others have looked on, sound in their own created morality but unsatisfied without a "higher explanation," and found belief systems that enable them, with faith and an understanding that there will be no provable answers until the end of this life, to examine possible higher connections. Neither path is quantitatively better than the other and both paths have much in common. Simply, it's a choice that one makes based on how one's mind works and, therefore, it's a highly personalized journey that shouldn't be lumped into generalities and dismissed out of hand. No one really knows anyone else's experiences so no one can really say who has the right of it.

The mistake comes in not allowing others to take the journey for themselves or trying to say that their answers are less valid based solely on your own experience. Or in not ever taking that journey in the first place and accepting a handed down set of rules and dictoms that you follow for no other reason than you've been told you must or you're afraid not to. These all produce very brittle world views that lead to conflict and violence because they are not fully thought out positions and, in order to exist, must avoid all other contrary world views which they can not stand against. For example, let me use two posters on this board. I disagree with Bottle regarding religion, but I would in no way, shape or form ever think that she is "wrong" in her findings and believe her to be an incredibly moral person who, through careful introspection and questioning as well as listening to the way she "works", has found her answers and tries, in her own way, to help others find theirs. I would like to think that, if she does think of me, that she doesn't look down on me for having found a different set of answers based on my own process of questioning, even though she may not agree with those answers herself. Neither one of us is "better" than the other because we have both come to our conclusions honestly and are willing to allow others to have viewpoints for themselves as they do not intrinsically invalidate our own searches. We can discuss our findings and our reasons behind them like adults, not having to shout at each other because we can't bear the very idea that the other might have the right of it. We're both willing, I think, on some level, to admit that we might be wrong, but that everything we have observed and experienced up to this point has led us to answers which seem right by our individual standards. On the other hand, an older poster to these boards, Cartese, had absolutely no respect for anyone with a view different from his. He was adamant in his belief that not only was religion unfounded supersition, but that it was actually detremental to society and he argued both long and loud against anyone who thought differently. In the end, it became hard to respect his opinions because he granted no one else that respect, the simple respect one gives another human being who has managed to stay alive long enough to form their own opinions and ask their own questions. His athiesim seemed to be not so much a reaction to his own search and existance, but a prolonged and violent attack on anyone who was different than him. In a way, it was no better than the basest form of religious zealotry. There was no discussing issues with him because he believed himself to be so far beyond the rest of us that it was comical. I would argue (perhaps unfairly) that his loud denunciation of all other belief systems, even ones that didn't directly affect him, indicate that his answers were not nearly as absolute as he would have liked them to be. Instead of coming to a discussion with a viewpoint, he came to it with "The Truth" and when anyone claims to have "The Truth", you'd be wise to be wary of them. He no longer posts here (at least under that name), but I sometimes miss him because he reminded me very much of myself when I was going through a non-theisim period. His arguments were very similar to the ones I came up with and endorsed. Not to say that he would eventually have embraced a theisim as I have. Who knows where his journey will lead him? But it was interesting to watch and see the similarities and to know that, at least with me, my atheisim was less a statement of belief and more an attack on things I didn't want to recognize.


No one today would seriously suggest that a belief in the Greek, Roman or Norse Pantheon is valid. Who believes in Odin, Zeus or Jupiter, yet people will readily subscribe to a belief which sees god as a human personality.

This isn't completely true and is an assumption. There are many Pagans out there who worship one or more of these Gods. Simply because they may not be "mainstream" is not reason to completely discount them. Those particular pantheons, like Christianity, represent a certain face of God that people may use to more comfortably deal with the abstraction that is the reality of whatever God truly is. Someone may feel more comfortable and, more importantly, more focused praying to multiple deities, each one with a specific sphere of influence, than to trying to comprehend a direct link through a single source. One is not intrinsically more correct than the other and they all may serve no more purpose than what would be accomplished by an hour's silent meditation. But the symbology is comfortable and understandable and speaks to people on a certain level for whatever reasons and this gives them the room to manover that they need to interact with whatever divinity may be out there.


I hope this has not caused unnecessary offence to anyone but I always think it’s better to question than to just accept.

I completely agree. I also think it's important to understand that not everyone will answer the same question in the same way and that neither answer needs to be "wrong" for them both to be "right".


If anything equivalent to god exists, I think it has nothing in common with any established religious belief and as a result, people who truly believe in this abstract of religious belief, owe it to themselves to really question what it is they believe in.

I couldn't agree more. One's spritual foundations must be errected on individual questioning and introspection as well as connection and exploration of the outside world. Only when one really knows why one believes what one believes can one truly claim to believe it and come to a discussion of belief honestly, openly and, most importantly, without fear.

Thanks for your very considered reply to my questions. I hope to reply in more detail soon (I don't have too much time on my hands at the mo). You have however put a very good case from the point of view of a follower of faith, thank you.

not believing in a supreme being is no more a faith than not believing in santa clause or the tooth fairy is

when i was a kid i received presents from both santa and the tooth fairy and im not sure that i could now PROVE that they in fact came from my parents. cant ask my parent, they are both dead. cant ask my siblings, they werent there to place the presents

is it a matter of FAITH that i dont believe that santa is a myth? no
nor it is a matter of faith that i believe that god is a myth.

in any case religious belief doesnt come from reason or proof but from a deep seated feeling about the the way the universe is structured. belief in god is way deeper than any objective proof can go

either you have the faith or you dont

i look at the religious explanations of the world and find my self unmoved and unbelieving.