The Feel Good God

robindch

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

What's there to say?

What you actually mean, and why you think that. Things like that.

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

You are definitely a turtle, it's what I feel.


.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

:rolleyes:

An Fear Aniar

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

You are definitely a turtle, it's what I feel.


.

That's not bad.:)


.

An Fear Aniar

CerebralCortex wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The exact same expression on my face as I watch you all trying to disprove the existence of God.

(or scoffing at religious nuts as if this was some sort of proof).

.

cavedave

It seems fair to say that we have certain neural circuitry designed to believe in god. The 'god helmet' story from a while back goes into this

We also have a vestigial sense of light polarization. Most people go through their lives having no idea they have this sense. Just because we have certain natural abilities does not mean we have to use them.

Sorry i am rambling here but the question seems to be is god belief something like attempting to have as many children as possible like a pillaging Mongol horseman *in the time of Genghis Khan* or something we have but can just ignore like Haidinger's brush.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The exact same expression on my face as I watch you all trying to disprove the existence of God.

(or scoffing at religious nuts as if this was some sort of proof).

.

You might not have that expression on your face if you realised we're not actually trying to disprove the existence of God. Its a forum where people who do not believe in God(s) come together to express their feelings on how useless the evidence there is for any form of God (the reason I'm an atheist). God being defined as the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions link

An Fear Aniar

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You might not have that expression on your face if you realised we're not actually trying to disprove the existence of God. Its a forum where people who do not believe in God(s) come together to express their feelings on how useless the evidence there is for any form of God (the reason I'm an atheist).

But that's the thing - evidence, empiricism, scientific method, logic. All useless to resolve this question (satisfactorily).

When I see people using these tools I feel like saying

"lol n00b".:)


.

PDN

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You think I worked it out with a pencil?

It's not about thinking, it's about feeling.


.

Are we still talking about atheism or has the subject changed to constipation?

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

But that's the thing - evidence, empiricism, scientific method, logic. All useless to resolve this question (satisfactorily).

When I see people using these tools I feel like saying

"lol n00b".:)


.

I can logically prove there is no god, for myself. It depends on your definition of a god. I find the term god to be a paradox, and as such, a god could not exist to me. It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.

This thing that might have created the universe etc, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
What makes something a god for you and something not a god? How powerful would it have to be?
Since it would have to have infinity power I imagine, it can not exist. I think 'god' is not tenable, for me. How and ever, what may be a god to you, is not a god to me, so a 'god' could exist to you. I contend that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of 'god' in part, rather than the words themselves. As what constitutes a 'god' is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.

I think there is a contradiction in the way that the more advanced a 'god' is, the more it is worthy of an aul grovel, yet the more advanced it is, surely the less it will think that it deserves one... worship being an inane human idea. The abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving.
If something was a supreme being, would it have a desire to be worshipped, or would it not need it and not yearn for it?

As for disproving a god for most people... As has been discussed before by others:
Lets take vampires. I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist"? To me it means I'm going to behave as if the statement is true. So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic, no holy water. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest developments in vampire news.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a dragon falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However you seem to define god as something which is just powerful, so I will discuss that below. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Most atheistic philosophers and groups define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities. I do not strongly disbelieve in a vampire, I have a lack of belief in him, such as with a god.
As is commonly said, atheism is a belief if not collecting stamps is a hobby.

An Fear Aniar

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

However you seem to define god......

I don't define God, are you mad???? That would make me God. It's insane to speak like that.


.

Tar.Aldarion

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I don't define God, are you mad???? That would make me God. It's insane to speak like that.


.

What is your definition of a god? You are not 'defining' a god, you are substantuating what would qualify as a god.
If that is all you can pick apart, I must have done well... :-o

Dave!

He's trolling, don't bother Tar...

Asiaprod

Dave! wrote: »

He's trolling, don't bother Tar...

He's on the radar

Tar.Aldarion

Dave! wrote: »

He's trolling, don't bother Tar...

I used to believe that, then I read J C and his ilk...faith, shattered.

An Fear Aniar

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

What is your definition of a god? You are not 'defining' a god, you are substantuating what would qualify as a god.
If that is all you can pick apart, I must have done well... :-o

It's the wrong starting place for this question. It's an ego thing, that's all.

There's loads of books on all this, I don't know why I come into this forum, I think I like to be challenged, that's all.

The starting place, is that god is too big to imagine. I use the term big to mean that it's way beyond our powers - because any insight we get is granted by god.

I don't think I'm trolling - I'm trying to represent an alternative theistic outlook to the people with big thick books.

.

Tar.Aldarion

Since we can't comprehend god, may as well not try, just believe.

cavedave

Economists have come up with an explanation for peoples level of belief in god

Fear, God, and State

A stunning hypothesis from the latest Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:

High levels of support often observed for governmental and religious systems can be explained, in part, as a means of coping with the threat posed by chronically or situationally fluctuating levels of perceived personal control. Three experiments demonstrated a causal relation between lowered perceptions of personal control and ... increased beliefs in the existence of a controlling God and defense of the overarching socio-political system. A 4th experiment showed ... a challenge to the usefulness of external systems of control led to increased illusory perceptions of personal control. ... A cross-national data set demonstrated that lower levels of personal control are associated with higher support for governmental control.

It seems we hope a stronger and more benevolent God or State will protect us when feel less able to protect ourselves. I'd guess similar effects hold for medicine and media - we believe in doc effectiveness more when we fear out of control of our health, and we believe in media accuracy more when we rely more on their info to protect us. Can we find data on which beliefs tend to be more biased: confidence in authorities when we feel out of control, or less confidence in authorities when we feel more in control?

Zombrex

cavedave wrote: »

Economists have come up with an explanation for peoples level of belief in god

Makes sense, wouldn't call that a stunning discovery, seems obvious to me, though it is good to see that they carried out a some what scientific study.

Christians have a neat explanation for that though to explain it way, that God comes to those who need him the most

robindch

cavedave wrote: »

Economists have come up with an explanation for peoples level of belief in god

Looks like they're groping for our old friend, the Stockholm Syndrome, the bruised, but grinning winner of more than a few debates in The Other Place.

I've no doubt that SS does apply to quite a few religious people.