#Ponderize

Which makes more sense? Bonus points: Think about the ramifications regarding each.

-> Thousands of gods with thousands of religions. All are real.

-> Out of the thousands of gods, one god is real. That god is the one you are following. The one your parents taught you about. The traditional god.

-> You were mistakenly following the traditional god of your family but was enlightened to follow another. Conversion.

-> Agnosticism. God cannot be proven or disproven. There is absolutely no physical evidence for or against god. Spiritual experiences originate in the mind.

This is not the exhaustive list, but will do for my purposes.

A <<macro view>> of mankind's history tends to indicate as man went from a more individualistic hunter gatherer to community minded farmer that myths arose and persisted. They did so because each community needed something more "binding" to keep it together, to help manage it, to keep individuals in line.

Hence god.

I mean, hence many gods!

Doesn't this make more sense?

I am an agnostic. I hope to <<think>> my way through life.

Wouldn't you prefer the same?

Think about it.

People want answers to their questions. People made up answers and majority rule in each group determined what "Truth" was. Bonus points for predicting the future, and other slight of hand. And gruesome penalties for making the priesthood look bad.

So many god-claims. :)

I'd venture, though, that "God cannot be proven or disproven" depends on the god-claim in question.
Some can (be disproven, quite handily).
Some can't (be disproven).

None can be 'proven.'

So, personally, I'm agnostic with regard to the ones that actually *can't* be either proven or disproven (it's still a big list!). I'm not agnostic with regards to the ones that *can* be disproven -- there's good reason to assert knowledge of their non-existence.

In any case, whether or not I can/do know they exist/don't exist is a separate issue from belief in them. I don't believe in any of them. Or in any that haven't yet been claimed/asserted.

I'd say that belief in the ones that can't be disproven, while not "rational," is at least understandable. It's hopeful, and that's OK. Whereas belief in the many that can be disproven...that's largely ignorance.

We can argue about whether or not they exist, and whether or not there's evidence to show they do/don't, openly and honestly without getting angry or calling each other names and such. At least I hope we can. It's the folks that assert their claimed one exists (your #2 above) despite the evidence (or lack thereof) that foster division, out-group hatred, and violence. IMHO.

We’re living in a time that never existed before. All of the revelations are coming from science and none are coming from religion. The Mudville 12 are batting 0. No wonder so many people are giving up religion.

definition of agnostic that I didn't think quite fit me. Someone on this board told me, from what I had said, that I'm probably an apathetist. I just don't worry about it anymore. I know I know nothing. I know religion screwed me over.

When I was young a favorite topic at the pulpit was the idea that the entire population of the world was obsessed, like really obsessed, with the three big questions in life as defined by Mormon leaders: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? These of course carry with them a foregone conclusion of a before and afterlife.

All I know is that since I have lived in the real world for three score and a bit more, I have seen no evidence of this extreme need to know the answers to those questions. From the religious camps I see no interest in those three questions but rather a great interest in following rules to get a reward like some circus animals.

If you ask the people I know they will tell you what religion they are. Most don't know much about it. They want the hat and the tee shirt that come with it and that is enough. They are not burning up to know the details of their God. They would really like to have a better car and wear the latest style clothing and eat at Olive Garden every few months. Oh, and they love their families like crazy most of them. That is enough.

That is where I am. Except, though I may be atheist I have no need of any hat and tee shirt to go with it.

"Think your way through life." I'll see you on that and raise you one. If that were on a Tee shirt would some find it offensive? I think so. You know what the Mormons say about intellectuals being on par with feminists and homosexuals.

Wait! What? There's no hat and T-shirt for atheists? But we've got the secret handshakes and silly rituals? Right? Please tell me we do!

I could tell you, but then I'd have to not kill you.

Oh, wait...


Nevermind :)

Let’s just admit that our secret handshakes involve boners. T-shirts figure in too!

:)

We tried to make some Tees, but the only appropriate image we could think of to depict "lack of" was "nothing." So now every time I see someone in a plain tee or logo-less ball cap I just assume they are atheists. No handshake, but I used to give a knowing glance but that kept getting confused with being a come-on so I just gave up.

Well, Moosie, as the unexamined life ain’t worth living, I’ve considered this, too. A lot of what one believes or doesn’t believe sure depends on where one is born.

I figure if I were born in Saudi Arabia, I’d probably be a Muslim. If I were born nowadays in the Czech Republic, an atheist. If I were born in my buddy Hie’s family, a hardcore TBM.

After many years as an agnostic, I returned to Christianity via the church of my ancestors. It was a conscious decision. But, I made sure the faith community was open to all and non-judgmental.

As an agnostic friend once said, I am a Christian by longing.

As an old fart, I’m a lot more existential about my beliefs. The dirt nap is approaching rapidly and as Shakespeare noted, “Conscience [of our own desth] doth make cowards of us all.”

I’ve tried to boldly say, Fuck God! But it rings hollow—I do believe—as illogical and irrational as that may be. It’s probably just as irrational as my deep love and friendship for friends here. Big hugs, Bruce!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2017 02:50PM by BYU Boner.

BYU Boner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s probably just as
> irrational as my deep love and friendship for
> friends here. Big hugs, Bruce!

Naw, we're real. So...more so. <grin>

It's all good, though. Your belief comforts you. It gives you hope. It doesn't make you hate. It doesn't serve to divide you from people different from you.

I can tease you about it being irrational all day, but I can't argue with what it does for you, or insist you give it up. It's part of who you are.

And I happen to like who you are :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And I happen to like who you are :)

Right back at you, you godless wanker :)

Great movie explains how religion could have started. “The Invention of Lying.”

A nice man lives in a world without any lying, he meets a sad woman whose mother has died, he says he’s sad about that and that he is “sure her mother is in a better place.”

The sad woman asks what place? where is she now? he says I don’t know I’m just sure it’s a better place.

The film goes on to poke fun at many beliefs that could evolve from that origin.

I think it’s a terrific movie.

Humans are in what may be a unique position in that we are reflective animals. I'm going to venture that your average dog, cat, squirrel or fox doesn't worry about why they are here and where they are going. They are here, and that is enough. I have a fox who lives in my back woods, and he is a happy-go-lucky little thing. He runs and plays and naps in the sunshine. He enjoys his life.

But we are reflective animals who normally like to live in groups. So we come up with stories that we tell each other. I tend to think of these as meaningful stories that in some ways are more important to us than facts. It's like the narrative that we Americans like to tell ourselves that we are the "best" country out there. Well, maybe we are and maybe we aren't. But we like to have an overly rosy view of ourselves. Think of all of those romanticized western paintings of a certain era. The romantic cowboy myth is alive and real.

Stories and myths are important to us. They are a way of viewing the world. Nowadays, a lot of our myths come from the media -- Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones. Science is answering many of our questions, but not all of them. We remain reflective animals. But some of us have realized that our questions may never be fully answered. And that is okay.

Yup. Thousands of religions and yours is the only true one. What are the odds ?

No man or woman knows ‘god.’ All, each and every religion is a human construct to enhance and enable the benefits of power and assets for the person who promises.

I am agnostic. Who knows how it all began and continues. But NO human knows. Except the dude who wants your worship and money.

So write me a check and I’ll find a church that works...

An earlier thread also caused me to #ponderize on myth, and I took your train of thought on that thread and let it go.

It occurred to me that before one god, when there were many gods, it was accepted and understood that worship of "different" gods was the norm.

"You're going to Temple X today, where these six or twelve or thousand gods have been/are worshipped; we're going to join the group paying homage at the base of the volcano. All bases are covered, so let's all meet up tomorrow for the feast."

Even flesh-and-bone humans were worshipped as "gods."

Then, there was only one god, and each unique group had the "secrets" that only "their" god could impart, and all prior (and other) gods were condemned as "myth," and worshippers faded or were destroyed.

The One God became many codified religions, and many of those have taken us through hell. Each group knew the "One Nameless God" like no other could.

Maybe we must "evolve back" through to being okay with the many gods of many groups, to understand peace. Maybe the gods need to be named as truly unique to each group, even though the embattled claims are of "Our One True God" (that is the same god).

The God of Abraham=

The God of the Israel ≠ The God of Rome ≠ The God of Evangelists ≠ The God of Islam ≠ The God of UU ≠ The God of Mormons ≠ ...

No inherent logic can exist in this formula, thus, conflict.

Sharing (sans sharing) just the one god has been rough on humanity.

I don't assume that those who conjured the books of religions to be masters of logic, but rather, seeking to turn the tides of belief to their own flavor, their own favor:


"Look, we're not asking that you change the basics. This one little addition, now long rumored and sung among many, is a growing trend best accepted. We're writing it down, just to be safe."


How can the same god who slammed the doors of Eden, killed all of humanity with a flood, or turned someone into a pillar of salt, morph into the same god who says that all are worthy of forgiveness, even the worst among us? One little change at a time, all now neatly written down, carved into stone, as it were.

Once that happened, we were bound into a single, unevolving myth, yet it's still the story of many evolving myths, but - we are looking from inside of fishbowls.

It's not the same god, I don't care how one twists the tale.

That Constantine. What a trouble-maker. Anything goes, but it must be of Abraham.

We are still tribal; the tools have evolved, and we need to catch up. We are like Cling-ons with antimatter.