God without religion

Sin City

GarIT wrote: »

You can't really say that for a fact, if there was a god it could be anything and do anything, but I doubt there is.

You cant say anything is fact really with religeon of any kind, you have to make allowences or leaps of faith etc so as far as everyone else saying that there is a supreme puppeter who made the world surely I can say that maybe a a divine coach potatoe who views us and our daily stories lol

pauldla

GarIT wrote: »

Nope, thats not love.

You must be feeling the wrong part, so.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

It's hard to grasp because, for me, it's simply not true. I am a scientist and know what energy is (and a fair few equations involving it). It makes no sense. Love is an emotion; it's a head thing, not a physical thing.

However, if you believe that love is energy, why do you then apply a "god" layer to it? Is "love is energy" not enough?

Cant love be a chemical thing or an electrical impulse in the brain which will then effect you physicaly

GarIT

Sin City wrote: »

Cant love be a chemical thing or an electrical impulse in the brain which will then effect you physicaly

Yes, but signals are not the electricity, they are carried through it, the electricity is the energy. Chemicals have energy but the energy is defined by other properties of the chemical non of which are how they make you feel.

Red21

doctoremma wrote: »

What does that mean, "God is the energy of love"? Love isn't energy so I assume you're using a poetic description of love? In which case, is it fair to say that you have ascribed the label of "god" to the network of human emotion that binds us to one another? So why do you need to label that "energy of love" as "god"? It's adding an unnecessary layer?

You cannot give a well defined description of what god is, the english language or any language isn't designed for it, a person can string a few words together in the hope of pointing to what they believe but it's pointless for you to break down their description because the word is not the thing, the word only points to the thing.

Sin City

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, but signals are not the electricity, they are carried through it, the electricity is the energy. Chemicals have energy but the energy is defined by other properties of the chemical non of which are how they make you feel.

I may have slightly oversimplified

GarIT

Sin City wrote: »

I may have slightly oversimplified

No, you were just wrong, you tried to use science to prove a point and it didn't work out. In a simple or complex way an emotion can not be energy.

Oryx

doctoremma wrote: »

Anyway, rambling. I guess I find it difficult to believe that anyone truly does rid themselves of the god (or gods) instilled in them by their surroundings. I'm not sure what it actually means when people say they believe in god but have no religion. Are there any "standard issue" believers here who view such claims with caution? Are they to be celebrated?

You mention about people 'ridding' themselves of the belief systems and ideas of god instilled in them by their surroundings and upbringing? But to what end? Why bother? You either find something that makes sense in your head, or you don't. And generally, the things that will make sense are the things we are familiar with. Why look for a whole new system that could be just as unreal/nonsensical/genuine/good for you/none of the above as the one you just turned from.

Anyone on a spiritual path will probably look at a few different religions. Some of which have godfigures, some do not. I think your initial question is actually very narrow. It comes across to me as if you think that the god figure is the absolute, the thing that people will remain clinging to when spiritually seeking. I don't agree with that.

But yes, people will attach to a belief that makes sense, and it makes sense because it is familiar. It could make god into anything from a bearded guy in a sheet, to a Jedi knight, to Philip Pullmans Dust. Or no god at all, just a trust in the goodness of the human heart.

I think the key thing for me when trying to understand what god might be, remains tied into two statements I was told years ago.

Never let anyone teach you anything.
If you see the buddha on the road, kill him.

gillad

doctoremma wrote: »

It's hard to grasp because, for me, it's simply not true. I am a scientist and know what energy is (and a fair few equations involving it). It makes no sense. Love is an emotion; it's a head thing, not a physical thing.

However, if you believe that love is energy, why do you then apply a "god" layer to it? Is "love is energy" not enough?

Im glad you are a scientist because you may understand my view on our existence.Everything in the universe is a big soup of Particles.If you look at yourself at the Quantum level all you will see is Energy.Everything is Energy including thoughts and emotions(Love).There is empty space between those particles so we are not solid beings with chemical reactions in our brains controlling our thoughts.We are Conscious Energy (spirits).This will be proven in the future as science starts to understand the behaviour of these particles that we are made of.A Particle can be in two places at once.A Particle takes every possible route/decision until it is observed and they can communicate with each other at any distance and this is what we are made of.Its very strange to science but it fits in perfectly with my spiritual view on what we really are.This WILL be proved. People thought the earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.Science doesnt understand(yet) the building blocks of what we are made of but when it does it will be a great evolution for us as Spiritual Energetic conscious beings.
I have my own evidence of this Energy and thats why my view will never change.

getz

i would prefer to call it a spiritual being,in my mind only a being with intelligents could create a world in which every living thing is critically inter-linked,also as i am a sensitive i do know the soul carries on after death,

GarIT

gillad wrote: »

Im glad you are a scientist because you may understand my view on our existence.Everything in the universe is a big soup of Particles.If you look at yourself at the Quantum level all you will see is Energy.Everything is Energy including thoughts and emotions(Love).There is empty space between those particles so we are not solid beings with chemical reactions in our brains controlling our thoughts.We are Conscious Energy (spirits).This will be proven in the future as science starts to understand the behaviour of these particles that we are made of.A Particle can be in two places at once.A Particle takes every possible route/decision until it is observed and they can communicate with each other at any distance and this is what we are made of.Its very strange to science but it fits in perfectly with my spiritual view on what we really are.This WILL be proved. People thought the earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.Science doesnt understand(yet) the building blocks of what we are made of but when it does it will be a great evolution for us as Spiritual Energetic conscious beings.
I have my own evidence of this Energy and thats why my view will never change.

I think you have taken how things work and understood it the wrong way. Anything that gravity applies to has potential energy, everything that can be burned has chemical energy but that does not mean those particles are energy. Yes everything is full of billions of tiny gaps but they act as a unit because they are bonded together, we are not concious energies, and chemical reactions do control everything. Heres an example of sorts, if I go into a group of people and throw water over the group they will all react even though they are not touching.

If I pull out your brain could you function normally? If I drained your blood could you still survive? You body depends on several things to live and there is no supernatural energy making it live.

I could say the same thing, people used to think the world was flat soon they will discover we are really all puppets controlled by the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You have evidence? This is great, what evidence of an energy that none of the best scientists have ever found do you have? You could be the smartest person ever if you have found evidence of this!

Just so you know particles are held together by the strong nuclear force and not an energy.

GarIT

getz wrote: »

i would prefer to call it a spiritual being,in my mind only a being with intelligents could create a world in which every living thing is critically inter-linked,also as i am a sensitive i do know the soul carries on after death,

You can't know something unless you can prove it, you can only think of guess it or even use the evidence to come to a likely conclusion but you cant know without proof.

Have you ever looked at it this way, how could it possibly happen where a univers is created where nothing has a physical relationship with anything else. Organic life probably developed and its unlikely that it was created. There is lots of evidence to support evolution we just can't go back in time to prove it.

doctoremma

Oryx wrote: »

Anyone on a spiritual path will probably look at a few different religions. Some of which have godfigures, some do not. I think your initial question is actually very narrow. It comes across to me as if you think that the god figure is the absolute, the thing that people will remain clinging to when spiritually seeking. I don't agree with that.

I'm more than happy to accept that my initial questions were/are narrow. T'is the point of questioning in the first place, to broaden one's view

Yes, I tend to imagine religious people stick to one godhead, as this is the idea most familiar to me and most common to those I know who are religious (either ardent followers or go-their-own-way private believers).

Oryx wrote: »

Or no god at all, just a trust in the goodness of the human heart.

Perhaps I have a different definition of "spiritual" to you guys? Trusting the goodness of humanity is not "spiritual" (in my head, at least).

GarIT

Oryx wrote: »

Anyone on a spiritual path will probably look at a few different religions. Some of which have godfigures, some do not. I think your initial question is actually very narrow. It comes across to me as if you think that the god figure is the absolute, the thing that people will remain clinging to when spiritually seeking. I don't agree with that.

In the defense of the OP I do believe that this thread was about how people view god and not spirituality.

Oryx

You can have spirituality without any belief in an external power. I meant trust in the goodness of ones own heart, rather than trusting everyone else.

Oryx

GarIT wrote: »

In the defense of the OP I do believe that this thread was about how people view god and not spirituality.

And Im just pointing out that 'god' can mean many things.

GarIT

Oryx wrote: »

You can have spirituality without any belief in an external power. I meant trust in the goodness of ones own heart, rather than trusting everyone else.

Thats not true. You can only have spirituality with belief in an external power. It doesn't have to be a god as such but does have to be an external power. Any spirituality is a belief in something more than just a physical world.

What you say about the heart is spirituality because it goes against physics, the heart directs and pumps blood any nothing else.

Basically spirituality is a broad term for the belief in anything that is wrong in terms of physics.

doctoremma

Oryx wrote: »

You can have spirituality without any belief in an external power.

How? Surely "spirituality" is defined by the supernatural (if not god).

GarIT

doctoremma wrote: »

How? Surely "spirituality" is defined by the supernatural (if not god).

Spirituality is defined as "the quality or fact of being spiritual". Spiritual is defined as "of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature"

From Dictionary.com

Oryx

doctoremma wrote: »

How? Surely "spirituality" is defined by the supernatural (if not god).

Spirituality is not supernatural.

Spirituality is about your inner path, discovering the essence of your being. Im paraphrasing the wikipedia entry there, but its worth a read to give yourself an insight into it. Spirituality can involve a higher being or power, but it does not have to.

GarIT

Oryx wrote: »

Spirituality is not supernatural.

Spirituality is about your inner path, discovering the essence of your being. Im paraphrasing the wikipedia entry there, but its worth a read to give yourself an insight into it. Spirituality can involve a higher being or power, but it does not have to.

Both your inner path and the essence of your being are supernatural, they dont exist in the real physical world and are just made up.

Oryx

GarIT wrote: »

Both your inner path and the essence of your being are supernatural, they dont exist in the real physical world and are just made up.

The use of your term 'made up' is I guess, because you have no time for any of it and wish to be just a teensy bit dismissive of such a belief system. Thats fair enough, its not your thing. The point I'm trying to make, is that most people think of spirituality as a belief in ghosties and spirits and angels and god. That does not have to be the case. And the term supernatural is usually a catch-all term for spookiness too.

If you are going to be pedantic, every thought you have is 'made up' and does not exist. You, as an individual, do not exist, you are a bag of biology who thinks, therefore he is. GarIT the person, will simply blink out of existence once the biology quits to function and become biodegrading material*.

*though maybe not.

GarIT

Oryx wrote: »

The use of your term 'made up' is I guess, because you have no time for any of it and wish to be just a teensy bit dismissive of such a belief system. Thats fair enough, its not your thing. The point I'm trying to make, is that most people think of spirituality as a belief in ghosties and spirits and angels and god. That does not have to be the case. And the term supernatural is usually a catch-all term for spookiness too.

If you are going to be pedantic, every thought you have is 'made up' and does not exist. You, as an individual, do not exist, you are a bag of biology who thinks, therefore he is. GarIT the person, will simply blink out of existence once the biology quits to function and become biodegrading material*.

*though maybe not.

What I said probably sounded wrong, I'm agreeing that there doesn't have to be a god or anything, but what im saying is that spirituality is basically a belief that there is something more than just the physical world. I would call any sort of spirit or the goodness of humans or anything an external power because its not a physical thing, maybe you wouldnt.

pauldla

Oryx wrote: »

And Im just pointing out that 'god' can mean many things.

Indeed. Love, it seems, is energy. But god, we are told, is love. So, therefore, god is energy. But so is coal! So, coal is god. And god is coal.

I have a friend who is a doctor of theology. She maintains that god is an event. I fear to throw that into the mix.

18AD

pauldla wrote: »

She maintains that god is an event.

How so? Sounds interesting.

pauldla

18AD wrote: »

How so? Sounds interesting.

I don't know. I haven't spoken to her directly about her beliefs because she's really nice and I don't want to argue with her, and because she's married to a good mate of mine.

But I'm sure somebody on the board will step in and expand the idea...

roosh

doctoremma wrote: »

Possibly could go in any number of fora but I'm most familiar with the posters here....

Is it possible to have god without religion? For those who have turned away from organised religion in favour of a more personal approach, does the god figure (and many of the rules) not coincide with the that of the religion you are most familiar with? When switching denominations, are you not just trying to fit religion to your own world view? Do deists have a god figure that fits with their most familiar religion? For the "spiritual but not religious", what form does your god take?

I would say that yes, it is possible to have God without religion, and equally,that it is possible to have religion without God. If God exists, then God exists independently of any and all religions.


I would probably fall into the category of "spiritual but not religious", although I have been very indisciplined when it comes to practice, as of late. I was raised in the catholic tradition but in the past few years have developed an interest in Buddhism, and spirituality in general. This exploration of spiritual philosophy and practice has given me an entirely different perspective on religion and God.


God
It appears that much of spiritual philosophy, which is based entirely in spiritual practice, points to the idea of God as the universe; with the universe being omnipotent (all power that exists belongs to the universe); omniscient (all knowledge that exists belongs to the universe); and omnipresent (the universe is everywhere). The universe created us, and if it hasn't always existed, the universe created itself.

Spiritual philosophy points to the unity of all things; all beings, and the realisation of this unity, through spiritual practice, as being our true, godlike nature.


In this sense Christ was the son of God, just as we all are; the kingdom of heaven is within us (mistranslation or not).


There is no bearded man behind the curtain; there is only the universe of which we are an inextricable part; there is no "you" or "me" in any real sense, because there is no point at which "I" become separate from the rest of the universe, or where "you" become separate from the rest of the universe.


For this, no religion is required.


Disclaimer: To paraphrase a caveat I've heard in the context of buddhist teachings: do not mistake understanding for realisation; do not mistake realisation for liberation.

I am neither claiming to be realised, nor liberated.

roosh

pauldla wrote: »

If love were energy, one Friday night rave could power a small town.

you'd have to figure out how to harness it first

roosh

doctoremma wrote: »

It's hard to grasp because, for me, it's simply not true. I am a scientist and know what energy is (and a fair few equations involving it). It makes no sense. Love is an emotion; it's a head thing, not a physical thing.

However, if you believe that love is energy, why do you then apply a "god" layer to it? Is "love is energy" not enough?

surely there is energy in everything; is that not what E=mc^2 means?

even if love is an emotion, there is presumably energy in the process of emotions, no?

roosh

GarIT wrote: »

Thats not true. You can only have spirituality with belief in an external power. It doesn't have to be a god as such but does have to be an external power. Any spirituality is a belief in something more than just a physical world.

What you say about the heart is spirituality because it goes against physics, the heart directs and pumps blood any nothing else.

Basically spirituality is a broad term for the belief in anything that is wrong in terms of physics.

Spirituality is more about self investigation and doesn't have anything to do with an external power.

Spiritualism is somewhat different again.