So before I start I just want to make a couple things clear:



1) I'm atheist
2) I understand that many of you guys will disagree with me so please reply so I can have a better perspective
3) This is just a general idea, not even worthy to be called a hypothesis or theory
4) Seeing that I am atheist, there are three relevant precepts to keep in mind of where I am coming from:
a) God is a made up superstition designed to help people cope with the idea of death and uncertainty
b) religion seeks to control people by using false book such as the BOM, Bible, Quran, Tora, ect.
c) There is no verifiable, quantifiable, observable, empirical evidence to support any current theories of a God, Savior, or One True Religion.


That being said, I may now actually say something that will surprise some people:


I am atheist, I very much dislike religion, but I don't dislike the idea of a God, a Divine Creator, and I do not discourage the pursuit of evidence of that creator. I don't think it's that crazy of an idea, I think religion is crazy (seeing as the mormon faith and surrounding christians really put a bad taste in my mouth and my mind does not allow my to believe in any sort of dogma without reason and logic.)


Being an atheist, I believe the pursuit of science would eventually unveil the existence of a god if he/she/it existed.


Any true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny the possibility of a god, and would certainly have to accept the existence of one if given evidence.


Atheists and agnostics deny religion and don't focus too much on the possibility of a god, theists usually accept religion because they believe in the possibility of a god, or perhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.


That being said, I think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.


I propose that individuals join religions only because of they agree with that assumption: the existence of a god. Religions then manipulate that innocent belief to impose dogmas, rules, cultural constructs, ect.


This is my proposal because because I do not necessarily see the idea of a belief of a god very destructive, but I do see the the belief systems of religion to be extremely destructive.


What do you guys think? I need some feed back to either correct this proposal or get rid of it entirely.


Do you think people join religions and follow them without question only because it agrees with the assumption of a higher intelligence?


(I hope I articulated this well enough.)
Also, that being said, I do reject the importance or existence of a god or higher intelligence. I'm not sure if that was clear. I just don't condemn the belief of a god, I condemn religion.

elconquistador Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you think people join religions and follow them
> without question only because it agrees with the
> assumption of a higher intelligence?

I think many people do because they are selfish. They need something backing their self up and a God is about as good as it gets.

Others can think of themselves as a pinnacle of evolution if they need an ego stroke to back them up in their selfishness.

I still haven't found what I'm looking for to back my selfishness up. This is probably why I am so shallow a person.

So the ultimate idea of god is inherently selfish and not an innocent hunch?

For me, that is how I see it. I could have a hunch that a teapot is in orbit around one of the moons of a distant planet in our solar system, but the function of that hunch has little purpose for me psychologically.

The hunch that there exists a being greater than me is rational. There really might be alien life forms with what I would consider superpowers or being much more advanced than how I'm experiencing human life.

But the hunch that there exists a being with a greater existence than I who somehow was the reason for my existence and possibly for all that I experience in the form of this planet, well, then that meets a need I have to satisfy my idea of self. I now can define myself in a relationship with another being who is not only greater than myself but is also the reason for my existence.

It is selfish. I want that being to exist to be able to define myself in a way I find appealing.

I see, I agree. Thank you so much for your insight. This has really helped me out. :)

wow! Thanks guys! I really enjoy all of this input. It has really enlightened me. :)

I'm agnostic, but I look at the whole god thing like radio waves: up until the 1880's radio waves were unknown and no one knew of any effects from them, now we listen to music and talk and study the universe using them.

Maybe someday an actual being, or some kind of intelligent force, will be discovered to show an effect on the world and people (independent of self-made or commanded belief and behavior). Until then I won't act as if "He" is blessing me, cursing me, or even caring about me, but I will act in a positive way as if there was a "someone" watching over me to see if I'm a good, honest, loving human being.....

I kinda like this, and this is sort of where I'm at as well.

Some people are really insecure and need someone to lead them, direct them, and tell them what to do and how to do it. Us the need for religious institutions.

Some people just wanna be 'right'.

Some people just need there to be a 'bigger meaning' in life, and need someone else to tell them how and where to find meaning in life.

elconquistador Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny
> the possibility of a god, and would certainly have
> to accept the existence of one if given evidence.

But, so far, the chances are infinitesimal.

If there were some sort of sentient being somewhere that had the power to create everything that exists, why doesn't it just come forward and say, "Here I am and here's how I did it?" Oh, I know the religious reasons for that, but what would the rational, scientific reasons be? Perhaps that we're actually an insignificant byproduct of a byproduct of a byproduct of the real reason the universe exists that we're not on the sentient being's list of priorities? After all, if this being could create the universe, then we are as primitive and stupid to him as single-cell animals are to us.

> But, so far, the chances are infinitesimal.

Based on what are the chances infinitesimal? If you base that on your own understanding of who or what God is then yeah that could be the case. I don't think God has been or is well enough defined. I also don't understand how you can reach this conclusion when there is so very much that we have yet to even grasp let alone fully comprehend.

> If there were some sort of sentient being
> somewhere that had the power to create everything
> that exists, why doesn't it just come forward and
> say, "Here I am and here's how I did it?" Oh, I
> know the religious reasons for that, but what
> would the rational, scientific reasons be?

Maybe we are the results of a scientific experiment that this greater being called GOD is doing that if GOD revealed itself to us that would ruin the experiment and the whole point of its creation.

I don't profess or proclaim to know if there is a GOD. It seems many are too quick to believe and many are too quick to deny the real possibility.

Stray Mutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there were some sort of sentient being
> somewhere that had the power to create everything
> that exists, why doesn't it just come forward and
> say, "Here I am and here's how I did it?"


An NDE experiencer that I was watching yesterday put forth the idea that humans are actually extremely primitive and insignificant compared to other life in the Universe. She said that the huge ego of humans is not at all justified and that we wouldn't be considered all that interesting to the deity that they believe exists.

Edit: Oh, and for myself, I'm always going in search of at least some proof that there may be a god of some sort. But it always leads me in the opposite direction instead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2014 05:53PM by Greyfort.

The idea of a genocidal god is fucked up.

I disagree. The idea of a personal god who cares more than any other being in the universe is more f-d up in my opinion because that god really is an opiate for the masses. It is the god who allows all sorts of f-d up stuff to happen in loving this god's creation.

Like the personal god who ordered the deaths of the Canaanites, the personal god in 1 Nephi 13 whose spirit was with Europeans (gentiles) and his wrath on Indians (seed of my brethren). The personal god who killed everyone on earth except Noah and his family. That's not an opiate for the masses, he is a sick deity who dispenses poisonous Kool-Aid. The idea of that god is crazy.

I was talking about the one in the New Testament or whoever or whatever came up with the idea of God is love in a Judea-Christian sense.

elconquistador Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Any true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny
> the possibility of a god, and would certainly have
> to accept the existence of one if given evidence.

Would you accept the clarification that the "evidence" TAKEN
AS A WHOLE, would have to be clear and compelling? And that
no alternative explanation for the evidence can suffice?

There is also the problem that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. If I claim that my brother once owned
a 1958 Chevy what evidence would it take to convince you? If
I claimed that my brother was once abducted by aliens and
taken to Venus for a week, what evidence would it take to
convince you? My guess is you'd need a different level of
evidence to be convinced of the second claim, than to be
convinced of the first.

It's an interesting argument that the idea of a god is not crazy.

On the other hand, the idea of a god is not well reasoned, nor based in any quality evidence.

Rather it calls upon the poorest methodology of man's observations and thinking: Over-active pattern recognition that was useful evolutionarily as false positives had a low cost compared to false negatives.

Feelings of the numinous and awe which are triggered by cultural effects, rhythm, nature and even chemical.

The idea of god is not crazy, but it remains a junk idea. Of course, what would constitute evidence of God is a pretty weak idea too that leads into the ever dwindling domain of the God of the Gaps.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea of god is not crazy, but it remains a
> junk idea. Of course, what would constitute
> evidence of God is a pretty weak idea too that
> leads into the ever dwindling domain of the God of
> the Gaps.

And one of these gaps filled by God is coincidence and another the explanation of good fate (blessings.)

Which gap has he filled? What's the evidence?

I was being sarcastic.

Not being snarky here, but you have to first define what a god even is. If you are talking about some bearded dude who is omnipresent, omnipowerful, all loving, etc. I say the probability is 0, as an atheist, I don't have to admit that that is even remotely a possibility. However, it is possible that there is some formulation of a god (whatever that is) that has a non zero probability for existence. I don't pretend to know all possibilities, but the only reason it is "impossible" to disprove god is because the definition is not ever concrete. It is always this nebulous thing that changes slightly from culture to culture, and even between individuals.

So, in short, give me a specific definition of "god" and then we can start discussing how ratonal or likely that thing is.

Its not crazy... its cognitively empty. Once you define the term "god" then you give that god limitations as to its characters and defining features. But NO ONE has ever given the term a definition. So when people use the term, I always notice that they jump to god as cause, and not and actual"thing" in and of itself.

So here is a simple test...
If you passed God, or a god, on the street how would you know?

HH =)

For me it was not crazy for people to assume there was a God of Thunder who was hurling lightening bolts through the sky. Would have made sense---at the time.

Osiris? Isis? Made sense at the time.

Zeus? Poseiden? Why not?--then anyway.

But Mormon Heavenly father? Even for our times it just doesn't make any sense.

Who wouldn't want a magical omnipotent being to care about them and always have their backside? I think this is a lot of religion.

Who wouldn't want to be the chosen and believe you would be the "first" in heaven--as in "the first shall be last and the last shall be first?" That is why Mormons claim persecution--so they can they can consider themselves the "last" even as they insure their women and their gay children are more deserving of that honor.

So I would agree, the idea of a god is not 100% crazy.But 99% crazy? I will have to go with that until one turns up.

Wanting to have a god is not crazy. Who doesn't want a big brother to look out for them? Who doesn't want a fairy god mother or a genie? Nice idea as long as it's not Mormon God, or Catholic God, or Muslim God, or any god I've ever known of. They are all scary as hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2014 03:47PM by blueorchid.

As an atheist my two views of a possible god would be:

1 - An advanced being that created the universe for its own ends, probably scientific research. While there are many reasons such a being wouldn't bother engaging with us I suspect the most likely would be that the universe as we know it is a science experiment, which prohibits its involvement in our affairs. Other possible answers is that we are just no more important to it than a single bolt in a single car is to Ford (and actually we would be much, much less important than that given the scope of the universe). The universe was created with a single event as far as we can tell which means "god" put as much effort into making us as he did into a lifeless rock on a planet in a galaxy a billion light years from here. In that case "god" may not even know yet that we exist.
- Either way there is no reason to worship this being

2 - God is an asshole. Maybe something like "Q" from Star Trek. A being that just loves to f*ck with people like a kid burning ants with a magnifying glass.
- Again there is no reason to worship this being

I think people should be free to believe and worship whatever they want so long as they don't hurt anyone or break any laws, but I have a hard time with the whole "god" idea. It's hard for me to imagine a god in the traditional sense that works well with the laws of science, and I can't find any necessity for any other kind. Also, I don't like bait and switch arguments that leave room for a nontraditional god and then start using that as a basis for belief in the traditional kind. I really just prefer to accept the universe the way it is, and if someday that points to some sort of god then I could accept that, but not without a really good reason.

Humans are smart enough to make up gods, but not smart enough to figure out wtf is actually happening. I don't feel obligated to fill in the void. Just exist.

I think that you should read the translations of the Sumerian cuneform clay tablets. This will give you a better perspective on the concept of god.

Suppose we were on the threshold of seeing into a spirit world or spiritual realm that coexists with the physical world & occasionally interacts with it. Suppose the spiritual world operates on a different set of laws than physical laws. How would that effect your thinking?

I think a belief in god or a supreme creator is just a comfort for many people. I agree with what you said about people join a religion because they believe there is a god, but are then manipulated to follow extreme rules.
I don't know if there is a god and I don't care to. My hope for anyone is to just be comfortable with not knowing. If there is a god then I'd like to think that he/she would only want us to enjoy this life and not worry so much about pleasing him/her.

according to what his followers say about Him.

Now there's a movie title:

God IS Crazy

;-)

I just can't get over the fact that you can invent an idea and then claim that it is plausible. Viability should be, for the most part, self evident.

So maybe the idea in and of its self is not crazy, but it is crazy that you get to make up and idea and then call the idea not crazy.