What would it take for you to stop believing that god exists?

[Imagist]

Yes and no. We're speaking, actually, of the exact same thing, each relative to our own perspective. After all, a Roman Catholic views "god" quite differently from the "god" a liberal Christian believes in.

The "traditional sense of the word" to whom? There are over a billion people living in China, a billion people living in India, a quarter billion people living in Indonesia, etc. Referring to the Christian perspective using the term "traditional sense of the word" is ethnocentric (viewing as "traditional" the perspective you've been inundated with since birth, due to how prevalent that perspective is locally, i.e., here in the United States).

The vast majority of the world still uses the word "god" to refer to things with some common characteristics; supernatural powers and control over natural forces or at least one natural force. I was only noting the Christian god as an example of such a god.

In contrast, your concept of god doesn't seem to have supernatural powers (as it is nature, such powers would make no sense). I'm not sure I fully understand what control your god exerts over natural forces. I don't think it's unfair or ethnocentric to refer to the other concepts of god as "traditional" in comparison with the others. Perhaps you would find it less offensive if I called them "more common" rather than "traditional"?

Do you believe in a god in the more common sense of the word, in addition to or as a part of the god that you equate with everything?

 

[Imagist]

Since beliefs cannot be consciously chosen or "unchosen", a person can only venture a guess as to what it might take.

I think if we understand the workings of our own beliefs we can venture something a bit stronger than a guess. For example, for me to start believing in the existence of a god, I would need evidence. I can say this with great confidence because any belief I have which I have put a significant amount of thought into is based in evidence or logical extrapolation.

 

[rstrats]

Imagist,

re: "... for me to start believing in the existence of a god, I would need evidence. I can say this with great confidence because any belief I have which I have put a significant amount of thought into is based in evidence or logical extrapolation."

Is there any implication in that comment that you have the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe things?

 

[Imagist]

It would take mankind becoming omnipotent. Only when mankind, as a race, knows everything that could possibly be known will it even be feasable to say that God doesn't exist.

In that situation, if Man knows everything and has yet to find God, then it would be accurate to say he doesn't exist.

as for now, there is such an embarrassingly large hole in man's knowledge that the existence of God must remain rather likely.

For the sake of this post, I'm going to assume you mean omniscience, not omnipotence.

I agree that there is a lot that humans don't know, but I don't follow the logic from that to your assertion that god's existence is likely. I mean, we can't prove that manbearpig doesn't exist without an impossibly thorough search of the earth, and yet I don't know anyone who seriously believes he exists. The question sounds silly, but do you think the existence of a god is more or less likely than the existence of manbearpig? If you think it's more likely, why?

I know the previous questions sound disrespectful, but I assure you no direspect is intended. I'm just trying to understand why such a huge burden of proof as omniscience is being placed on the idea of god's nonexistence, when no such burden is placed on the likely nonexistence of other things.

 

[Imagist]

Imagist,

re: "... for me to start believing in the existence of a god, I would need evidence. I can say this with great confidence because any belief I have which I have put a significant amount of thought into is based in evidence or logical extrapolation."

Is there any implication in that comment that you have the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe things?

No. I'm merely saying that just because we don't choose what to believe doesn't mean we don't understand the mechanisms by which our beliefs are formed. I was giving as an example that I can't choose what I believe, but I know what would cause me to believe in the existence of a god.

 

[MoonWater]

I'm not sure I understand this. Can't there be many kinds of beings with consciousness and none of them be gods? I personally believe it's highly improbable that we are the only sentient beings in the universe, but I am an atheist.

Also, what is the relation of energy and natural forces to the existence of a god?

Let me see if I can explain without confusing you further.

To start with my concept of gods is very different from most others and in fact, to be honest, while I do consider myself a theist using the term "god" is a bit disingenuous for me. First off "energy and natural forces" are involved because I consider them "members" of a "group" of forces I call the infinite forces(which also include things like emotions) but that all these forces are expressions of one bigger force(like the Hindu concept of all gods being an aspect of Brahma) Think like the force in star wars only it's not limited to just the light and dark aspects we see in the movies but rather has an infinite number of expressions and aspects to itself.

The only "beings" I actually refer to as gods(though I'm using that term less and less for them as well because it tends to lead to misunderstandings with others) are more "spiritual guides" than anything else. I believe that all the gods of all religions and then some exist whether it be as no more than mental constructs or as actual "spirits" I believe they exist in one form or another and in the end don't think their form of existence really matters. They are still able to influence and guide us in a way even if it's nothing more than subconscious.

Yes there can be and I do believe there are numerous conscious beings that don't choose to become gods, or more accurately "spirit guides". I see such a decision as pertaining more to personal choice rather than the evolution of a species. I also don't doubt that if we met a highly advanced race they would be "as gods" to us. A good example that RiverWolf just gave me, cavemen would probably see us as gods. So I think whether or not gods exist also depends greatly on one's own perception of what a god is.

I don't view gods as supernatural beings, indeed I don't believe in the supernatural at all cause the way I see it, if it exists, it's natural, you can't have anything above or beyond nature. So in a way you could say I view nature as a "god". In the end though, since I use the term god less and less and don't really believe in gods in the sense that we usually see them defined perhaps it is best to start calling myself an atheistic-theist, rather than just a theist.

Did that help to clarify or did I just confuse you even more. I'm still trying to figure all this out for myself so apologies if my thoughts on the matter seem jumbled.

 

[Sententia]

Honestly after reading some of the responses I have no idea why Atheists suffer such a stigmatism. Theists that believe because they believe or because they have had an encounter with what they classify as divine and that is the end. No questions are to be asked. Nothing would end my belief. That scares the crap out of me.

I will never question what I believe today because I know I am right and that is that... this mentality strikes me as beyond stubborn. Granted there are people who will have that mentality about all kinds of things and not just god beliefs...

Popular beliefs people have that they would never question and would kill to prove it: You're a good driver, good parent, good at your job, good son or daughter, you're son or daughter would never kill or steal etc, you're a good person, you're happy etc etc. Whether these are true or not is irrelavant to the zealous adherance to the fact that they are right whether they are wrong or right.

Im gonna have great dreams I am sure. (Scary thread)

 

[Smoke]

Maybe this was thought to be a rhetorical or sarcastic question, but I was actually asking quite sincerely. Is there any theist who would care to answer it?

What are you perceiving that convinces you there is a god?

 

[bicker]

For Pantheists, the answer is easy. The natural world and universal are self-evident, evidence to which each person has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation. The self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse nature of the Universe is undeniable, and its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.

 

[Imagist]

Let me see if I can explain without confusing you further.

To start with my concept of gods is very different from most others and in fact, to be honest, while I do consider myself a theist using the term "god" is a bit disingenuous for me. First off "energy and natural forces" are involved because I consider them "members" of a "group" of forces I call the infinite forces(which also include things like emotions) but that all these forces are expressions of one bigger force(like the Hindu concept of all gods being an aspect of Brahma) Think like the force in star wars only it's not limited to just the light and dark aspects we see in the movies but rather has an infinite number of expressions and aspects to itself.

The only "beings" I actually refer to as gods(though I'm using that term less and less for them as well because it tends to lead to misunderstandings with others) are more "spiritual guides" than anything else. I believe that all the gods of all religions and then some exist whether it be as no more than mental constructs or as actual "spirits" I believe they exist in one form or another and in the end don't think their form of existence really matters. They are still able to influence and guide us in a way even if it's nothing more than subconscious.

Yes there can be and I do believe there are numerous conscious beings that don't choose to become gods, or more accurately "spirit guides". I see such a decision as pertaining more to personal choice rather than the evolution of a species. I also don't doubt that if we met a highly advanced race they would be "as gods" to us. A good example that RiverWolf just gave me, cavemen would probably see us as gods. So I think whether or not gods exist also depends greatly on one's own perception of what a god is.

I don't view gods as supernatural beings, indeed I don't believe in the supernatural at all cause the way I see it, if it exists, it's natural, you can't have anything above or beyond nature. So in a way you could say I view nature as a "god". In the end though, since I use the term god less and less and don't really believe in gods in the sense that we usually see them defined perhaps it is best to start calling myself an atheistic-theist, rather than just a theist.

Did that help to clarify or did I just confuse you even more. I'm still trying to figure all this out for myself so apologies if my thoughts on the matter seem jumbled.

That does clarify a lot for me, but as always, more knowledge opens up more questions!

Why do you believe in these "spirit guides" (i.e. what evidence do you have of their existence)? Are there any specific ones that you know of?

 

[Imagist]

For Pantheists, the answer is easy. The natural world and universal are self-evident, evidence to which each person has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation. The self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse nature of the Universe is undeniable, and its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.

I certainly can't deny the existence of these things, and indeed as I study nature more and immerse myself in it, I am inspired to feel indescribable deep emotions. However, I do not feel that it is conscious, or that it exerts its forces toward any goal, or that I should worship or pay homage. I empathize with your feelings toward nature, but I still don't see the need or purpose of deifying it or treating it as a god.

So my question is, what about nature leads you to deify it?

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

I will never question what I believe today because I know I am right and that is that... this mentality strikes me as beyond stubborn. Granted there are people who will have that mentality about all kinds of things and not just god beliefs...

Agreed. In the sister thread where atheists were asked what would make them change their mind about god/s, there were all kinds of ways they described their position as falsifiable.

A position which is not falsifiable, is inherently fiercely circular. imho

 

[Storm]

Agreed. In the sister thread where atheists were asked what would make them change their mind about god/s, there were all kinds of ways they described their position as falsifiable.

A position which is not falsifiable, is inherently fiercely circular. imho

I believe what I have perceived. How is that circular? ETA: Admittedly, my lack of an answer to the original question is a failure of imagination on my part.

 

[Willamena]

Agreed. In the sister thread where atheists were asked what would make them change their mind about god/s, there were all kinds of ways they described their position as falsifiable.

A position which is not falsifiable, is inherently fiercely circular. imho

Is a position such as in post #11 that is to be open to being falsifiable if a means could be conceived for it still "circular"?

The problem I would expect for theists is that what they are describing with their beliefs is, for them, the nature of reality. How would you falsify reality?

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

I believe what I have perceived. How is that circular? ETA: Admittedly, my lack of an answer to the original question is a failure of imagination on my part.

I wasn't saying something that's circular cannot possibly be true. The concept of gravity is circular, for example. Why do masses attract one another? Because of gravity. Why is there gravity? Because masses attract one another. But it is still true as far as we can see, and can make predictions based on it, yadda yadda.

The intent of the OP is an intellectual exercise, I think.

 

[Imagist]

I believe what I have perceived. How is that circular? ETA: Admittedly, my lack of an answer to the original question is a failure of imagination on my part.

Well, how do you know that what you perceived is true? Because you perceived it seems to be the only possible answer.

As invisible chzbrgr noted, that doesn't mean it's illegitimate (I believe it's illegitimate on other grounds).

 

[Storm]

Well, how do you know that what you perceived is true? Because you perceived it seems to be the only possible answer.

OK, so it's circular reasoning to believe in my desk?

 

[Imagist]

The problem I would expect for theists is that what they are describing with their beliefs is, for them, the nature of reality. How would you falsify reality?

It's not a matter of falsification, it's more a matter of misinterpreting reality.

 

[Willamena]

It's not a matter of falsification, it's more a matter of misinterpreting reality.

According to whom? (According to the one who has interpreted reality differently.)

 

[Imagist]

According to whom? (According to the one who has interpreted reality differently.)

But you do agree that it is possible to misinterpret reality (as opposed to falsifying it)?