Why don't you believe in God/s?

[Windwalker]

To add... more people believe that God cares about them, and that's not just because they read the Bible (some don't read it), but simply because they believe that common sense tell them that there is a creator of life, and the creation around them tells them that he cares.

I'd be careful here as creation tells many that God does not care, in that nature is "red in tooth and claw". Life for them may be full of great sorrow, fear, anxiety, and anguish. If someone sees God as creating a world for them, they are going to see something different. They may interpret this as God actually enjoys torturing us. Is there another reason you can think of why someone would understand God as Love, something that isn't based on one's powers of observation and deductive reasoning? What would that be? How would they access that?

 

[Nakosis]

It does not require a view of God, no. In reality, as you enter into spiritual states of being, questions of God or No-God are no longer questions as those are questions of the mind. What is, simply IS, and some may choose to call that God, or some other term which captures that state of transcendent Awareness of Reality; Allness, Is'ness, Such'ness, Being. Ground, Source, Divine, Formlessness, etc.

That's fine, if people choose to call something God I've no problem with that, which I think I've implied often enough.

However I see it as a need of some kind. Being happy, mentally healthy is generally easier to go about if your needs are being fulfilled.

I mean I have other needs, it's not like I'm saying my needs are superior for lacking a God. Just pointing out it's one need I don't happen to have.

 

[nPeace]

This is a rather difficult question to answer, largely because religious people don't seem to know. What do Shintoism, Christianity, and Hinduism have in common?

I suppose I would say religion is a worldview created by humans who wish to believe that they understand and have some control over circumstances of their situation that they actually don't have. They just prefer to believe that they do.

I think that Faith is what people believe because they prefer to live in a world where it's true, rather than believe in something because the evidence is strong.

That can be said of any existing system. Can't it?

Obviously, worship (or veneration at least) is a very consistent attribute of religion. But they are not the same thing.
Tom

Thanks. I agree.
So would you say then that to believe in a god/gods, one must also believe in worship or a form of worship - religion - or what can be viewed as religion?

 

[Quintessence]

Back when my understanding of theism was confined to the classical monotheism most Westerners think of, I stopped "believing in"* that god as a kid because:

• I had a great love of fantasy fiction and science fiction. The tales of the Bible were boring by comparison and just not interesting to me.
• I was a kid with attention deficit disorder for whom going to church on Sundays was torturously boring and annoying.
• I had a great love of science, particularly natural sciences. The tales of the Bible were illogical and inconsistent with the mythos I was learning through sciences.
• I was that smartie pants kid who asked difficult questions. My Sunday school teachers didn't give me articulate or satisfactory answers and thought I was just being "difficult" (perhaps not entirely untrue in retrospect).

Being unaware of other types of theism, or even other types of religion, I was basically an atheist after I convinced my parents to quit forcing me to go to church and Sunday school. But I was the bad, ignorant kind of atheist whose knowledge of theism and religion fit inside a thimble. I stayed that way for the better part of a decade or so.

There are still plenty of gods I don't "believe in"* - not in the ways that have substance or that matter. Today, it boils down to "I don't find those gods inspiring" or "I have limited time and energy to devote to the gods, and I have to pick my favorites."

*It's important to note that the phrase "believe in" means several different things. I do not mean "believe in" in the shallow sense of "ontologically real." I mean "believe in" with respect to "has significance in my life" or "is a source of meaningfulness" or "is an object of trust or regard." In other words the more substantive usages of "believe in." ​

 

[nPeace]

I'd be careful here as creation tells many that God does not care, in that nature is "red in tooth and claw". Life for them may be full of great sorrow, fear, anxiety, and anguish. If someone sees God as creating a world for them, they are going to see something different. They may interpret this as God actually enjoys torturing us. Is there another reason you can think of why someone would understand God as Love, something that isn't based on one's powers of observation and deductive reasoning? What would that be? How would they access that?

You' do have a point.
Do you own a car?.
When the manufacturing company produced the car, that can rightly be called a creation. When you drive it and scrape a wall - putting e millimeter deep scrap in it, and run it head on into a tree - putting a twisted dent in it - it can still rightly be called creation.
Only now, you realize that the reason it looks so horrible, is because Daredevil got his hands on it.

Some people realize that the world is a mess, not because of the creator, but because of the Daredevils - if you get what I mean.
So when they see a butterfly missing half its wing, or a baby missing it thumbs, they know that that's not the original design. Something obviously went wrong - Daredevil stepped in.

 

[Windwalker]

However I see it as a need of some kind. Being happy, mentally healthy is generally easier to go about if your needs are being fulfilled.

Well... okay. But let's get down to some brass tacks here. Let's bring in Maslow's needs hierarchy. These "needs" can be broken out into two different types of needs. The first, "deficiency" needs, which is seeking something for the self to gain that it feels it currently lacks; such as emotional fulfillment, financial fulfillment, relationship fulfillments, etc. When you hit the level of "Self Actualization", you now move into the second category of needs that can be understood as "abundance needs". This is where all the other deficiency needs have been satisfied, and now what motivates us is to develop and grow and become, "just because", or as a result of overflowing abundance of ones own being. I liken this to the creative process itself. It just "has to" create, because that is an action of Love. It's not because its driven to fill something lacking. Another term you can call this is "being needs". The motivation is about "being and becoming". It is by its nature a response from Joy.

So, while one in fact may seeking God, or the spiritual path, for "deficiency needs" such as emotional needs, ego needs, belongingness needs, security needs, etc., at a certain stages of development it becomes apparent that this is not in fact spirituality at all, but grasping and desires of the lower needs. This is why central to most religious injunctions, "surrender" is paramount. You surrender seeking for these things, as that seeking is coming from the lesser drives in us. The hope is to overcome these and be Free. And the desire to be Free, actually, is an aspect of the spiritual Will itself. That is the innate drive in all of creation itself, to "be and become" to be fulfilled and overcome the limitations of form as its deficiency needs, or rather to fulfill them by overcoming their desires.

I mean I have other needs, it's not like I'm saying my needs are superior for lacking a God. Just pointing out it's one need I don't happen to have.

In reality they are the same deficiency needs as those beginning a spiritual path come into one with. For many today, the symbol of God is so tainted with anthropomorphic magical images that they cannot relate to it, so they transfer the same symbolic power given to God that "believers" imbue it with, to other objects of belief. It's the same action, the same drives, and ultimately the same ceiling both the believer and unbeliever alike will face. Once that line is crossed over from deficiency to abundances needs, the questions of God resolve themselves rather handily. God is no longer "other" and ceases to be that to us. God is not other to us.

 

[nPeace]

No, I don't see how. Science, sometimes unfortunately, is only concerned with facts, not what's done with them.
Moreover, science is anti-faith, skeptical of everything, and always willing to revise its views as new evidence emerges. Science follows evidence, not scripture, folklore, mythology or commonsense; Anything lacking actual, empirical support is considered hypothesis, at best.

Right... and what are hypotheses, and where do they come from?

 

[Windwalker]

You' do have a point.
Do you own a car?.

Yes, I just finished paying it off so that means $300 a month I can spend on other things now, like that new MIDI controller board for my home studio.

When the manufacturing company produced the car, that can rightly be called a creation.

That cannot be equated with the natural world of God's creation. Nature is not a manufactured product. It's an organic living creation which creates itself as a result of the innate power of creation the Creator included it with. Unlike many, I do not view Creation as an event of the past, but a continual action in each and every moment we experience. You can't equate that with a car, which isn't a living being, nor does it evolve nor possess an inherent intelligence of its own.

When you drive it and scrape a wall - putting e millimeter deep scrap in it, and run it head on into a tree - putting a twisted dent in it - it can still rightly be called creation.
Only now, you realize that the reason it looks so horrible, is because Daredevil got his hands on it.

But let's say I'm sitting in my backyard enjoying a refreshing iced tea, and suddenly that car appears from behind that tree and rips my stomach out of me and eats me, like a tiger. At this point, that's not a car but a living creation that does not view my existence as something I might enjoy keeping. I don't control that, and the notion we control nature, is highly misguided.

Some people realize that the world is a mess, not because of the creator, but because of the Daredevils - if you get what I mean.

Identifying the idiots among us is easy. Understanding why God creates a world that seeks to kill us, is another level of challenge not easily overcome.

So when they see a butterfly missing half its wing, or a baby missing it thumbs, they know that that's not the original design. Something obviously went wrong - Daredevil stepped in.

Or, our perception of God is messed up to match reality as it is. The "fall" as an "explanation" for this contradiction does not match what we can see really is true. That may satisfy those that just accept the story without investing nature herself, but not to those who do. We should use our minds this way, and adjust our thinking about God accordingly.

 

[columbus]

That can be said of any existing system. Can't it?

No, not really.
The fundamental difference between religion and science is the methods science employs to weed out the incorrect beliefs that people have.

From the super precise vocabulary to the insistence on peer reviewed publishing, the Scientific Method is intended to minimize the problems caused by the limitations we humans have.
Religion has no such methods. As a result, religions commonly teach false, even harmful, things.
Tom

 

[Altfish]

Sorry to hear of your experience.
You are probably the 1.5 billionth person with the almost same exact experience... and you won't be the last.
Sadly, many people blame God for the ills that befall us, but I always question the fairness of that.
I don't think it fair to jump to conclusions based on our emotions nor hearsay, but I guess humans are emotional for the most part.
Often, I'm sure you have witnessed this yourself, when people are bitter about something, they try to find reasons, but often end up laying blame on someone or something, when they don't find a solution - only to find out that their assumptions were incorrect.
Many people are in prison, not because they are guilty of the crime, but merely because they happened to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time" - if that makes sense.
You are probably like billions of people - simply asking the question Why?

and not seemingly getting the answer. So the logical conclusion - blame God, and believe the priest.

Interestingly many persons don't blame God, nor believe the priest. Some may have felt that way at one time, but they examine the Bible for themselves, and to their surprise and delight, they find that the answer is quite contrary to what the priest says, and makes sense, to their satisfaction.
In fact it gives their life added meaning and hope.
They also realize that God isn't to blame.


Well we all have a choice to believe what we want, so I respect that.

Since I don't believe in god, I don't blame god.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I just finished paying it off so that means $300 a month I can spend on other things now, like that new MIDI controller board for my home studio.


That cannot be equated with the natural world of God's creation. Nature is not a manufactured product. It's an organic living creation which creates itself as a result of the innate power of creation the Creator included it with. Unlike many, I do not view Creation as an event of the past, but a continual action in each and every moment we experience. You can't equate that with a car, which isn't a living being, nor does it evolve nor possess an inherent intelligence of its own.


But let's say I'm sitting in my backyard enjoying a refreshing iced tea, and suddenly that car appears from behind that tree and rips my stomach out of me and eats me, like a tiger. At this point, that's not a car but a living creation that does not view my existence as something I might enjoy keeping. I don't control that, and the notion we control nature, is highly misguided.


Identifying the idiots among us is easy. Understanding why God creates a world that seeks to kill us, is another level of challenge not easily overcome.


Or, our perception of God is messed up to match reality as it is. The "fall" as an "explanation" for this contradiction does not match what we can see really is true. That may satisfy those that just accept the story without investing nature herself, but not to those who do. We should use our minds this way, and adjust our thinking about God accordingly.

Ideas aside...

Nature is not a manufactured product. It's an organic living creation which creates itself as a result of the innate power of creation the Creator included it with. Unlike many, I do not view Creation as an event of the past, but a continual action in each and every moment we experience.

.. you get my point.
... and I do understand why you have your views, and I respect that.

 

[nPeace]

Since I don't believe in god, I don't blame god.

...any more.

 

[nPeace]

No, not really.
The fundamental difference between religion and science is the methods science employs to weed out the incorrect beliefs that people have.

From the super precise vocabulary to the insistence on peer reviewed publishing, the Scientific Method is intended to minimize the problems caused by the limitations we humans have.
Religion has no such methods. As a result, religions commonly teach false, even harmful, things.
Tom

Okay, so could you tell me how a peer reviewed publishing is supposed to be credible if it can't be verified... i.e. travel back in time to see it happen.
I mean... I have no way of traversing the entire universe and beyond to see if I find God right?

 

[Nakosis]

Well... okay. But let's get down to some brass tacks here. Let's bring in Maslow's needs hierarchy. These "needs" can be broken out into two different types of needs. The first, "deficiency" needs, which is seeking something for the self to gain that it feels it currently lacks; such as emotional fulfillment, financial fulfillment, relationship fulfillments, etc. When you hit the level of "Self Actualization", you now move into the second category of needs that can be understood as "abundance needs". This is where all the other deficiency needs have been satisfied, and now what motivates us is to develop and grow and become, "just because", or as a result of overflowing abundance of ones own being. I liken this to the creative process itself. It just "has to" create, because that is an action of Love. It's not because its driven to fill something lacking. Another term you can call this is "being needs". The motivation is about "being and becoming". It is by its nature a response from Joy.

Exactly what I'm saying. Some folks have a need for this concept of "being and becoming" to feel fulfilled I guess. However just because spiritual spokesperson says it's a common uh "motivation I suppose", doesn't mean that it is. Maybe it's a real "motivation" for some or maybe some have just been convinced it's a motivation they should have.

So, while one in fact may seeking God, or the spiritual path, for "deficiency needs" such as emotional needs, ego needs, belongingness needs, security needs, etc., at a certain stages of development it becomes apparent that this is not in fact spirituality at all, but grasping and desires of the lower needs. This is why central to most religious injunctions, "surrender" is paramount. You surrender seeking for these things, as that seeking is coming from the lesser drives in us. The hope is to overcome these and be Free.

Ok, but if you're not "seeking" in the first place it shouldn't be a problem right?

And the desire to be Free, actually, is an aspect of the spiritual Will itself. That is the innate drive in all of creation itself, to "be and become" to be fulfilled and overcome the limitations of form as its deficiency needs, or rather to fulfill them by overcoming their desires.

Sure, but these desires are then replaced by other desires, or motivations as you like to call them. You class some motivations as higher, some as lower. If that helps provide you some insight on how you believe things to work, that's ok. I don't see much need to seperate them out like that myself. A motivation is a motivation, if they happen to change they do and you move forward with the new motivations.

In reality they are the same deficiency needs as those beginning a spiritual path come into one with. For many today, the symbol of God is so tainted with anthropomorphic magical images that they cannot relate to it, so they transfer the same symbolic power given to God that "believers" imbue it with, to other objects of belief. It's the same action, the same drives, and ultimately the same ceiling both the believer and unbeliever alike will face. Once that line is crossed over from deficiency to abundances needs, the questions of God resolve themselves rather handily. God is no longer "other" and ceases to be that to us. God is not other to us.

Ok, but you're assuming there is a necessity to change from "deficiency" motivations to "abundance" motivations. I don't really see a need for the classification other than some folks feel there's a need to seperate the motivations they themselves see as spiritual from those they don't.

One view I suppose you are championing, is the way to deal with motivations is to replace them with motivations you consider more "spiritual"? Ok that's fine but I see it more as a personal prerogative than necessity. You feel you are better off with whatever you feel are the correct motivations it's not for me to say otherwise. I just don't see where these "correct" motivations are anymore correct or have to be correct for anyone else. In my case I just see them as more motivations to move things along. No need to classify them as being necessarily the correct motivations for anyone else.

 

[Underhill]

The devil made me do it. He came to me one day and he said, "son, I will give you everything you have ever wanted if you would just cast aside your belief". Sure enough, my life of endless car loans, mortgages and mountains of debt has been a dream come true. I would hate to put it all in jeopardy just to tell you that my reasoning was really as simple as realizing an old book was not evidence of anything.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do you think spirituality requires a God?

In my personal experience, I think not. For example, under many disciplines of Shamanism, they do not subscribe to an over-arching single god-being, but rather more limited spirits (or similar).

But I would question anyone discounting the spiritualism of practitioners.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please accept my humble apologies. That was not my intention at all. I am not that kind of person. if you knew me, you would not pass such judgment, but you'd realize I am just a fun loving humorous guy, that don't like to be serious all the time.

Fair enough-- it's nearly impossible to discern emotional intent, through just the print medium.

English is a rich language, and very nuanced when spoken. Not so much, when confined to letters-in-a-row.

Thanks again, but you are still showing that the conclusions you reached are based on your feelings - Just as I reached the conclusion on the red sky.

False. If I were? I'd still have a great deal of faith. Faith is pretty much entirely based on emotional appeals, seeing as how there is zero objective reason to believe in gods in the first place...

You are, unfortunately, projecting your experience onto mine, which obliterates mine.

In truth? My conclusion is simply based on observation: There exists god-preventable EVIL on Earth, among humans.

The simple fact that NO GOD EVER prevents those large swaths of Evil from taking place?

Is all the proof anyone not emotional about the subject needs to conclude there cannot be any such beings.

To add... more people believe that God cares about them, and that's not just because they read the Bible (some don't read it), but simply because they believe that common sense tell them that there is a creator of life, and the creation around them tells them that he cares.

Argument from Popularity Logical Fallacy. I remain unconvinced.

Not all that long ago? Everyone just Knew that the world was the center of the Universe...

Now please don't think i am trying to insult anyone - because I used the phrase common sense tells them. i am not trying to insult any one.

No insult taken-- indeed, in order to be insulted, one must give permission.

If you own your own feelings? You become impossible to insult.

As for common sense? Well... I love what Ben Franklin had to say:

"Common sense is neither common, nor sensible"

 

[Nakosis]

But I would question anyone discounting the spiritualism of practitioners.

That's not what I am doing. The OP is more or less questioning the need for a belief in God. I'm just explaining why I don't see a need for one for myself.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Talking about somebody's autocorrect instead of their post doesn't give you any credibility whatsoever.
In case you care about that.
Tom

Yes it does~

If you're relying on autocorrect, you aren't familiar with the concept enough to be an authority.

An authority is someone who has spent years on a subject. Suppose I was claiming to be a master of US history, and mixed up FDR and Teddy Roosevelt? Suppose I said that FDR said something about "speak softly but carry a big stick"? Could you take what I said seriously?

Oh yes, there are minor mistakes. And I could imagine this person making a typo. It wasn't. Later on, same post, same mistake.

Not only failing English (the "i before e" rule only applies when things have a certain sound, which is why "science" is still spelled as it is), but failing to understand the word itself. The word "deity" comes from deus, then deitas, both Latin, before it came into Greek (theotes), French (deite), and finally English (deity). A deity, is a deus. A god. Can anyone tell me what it means to be a god? It seems not, because people talk about "well what created God." If one is a god, such a question has no meaning! And if I have to explain why that is, you really don't understand. But I will.

A god is something that exists independent of cause. It creates the effect, but nothing creates it. In other words, it is meaningless to ask, where is Shiva's father, because given he is a god, there isn't one.

The theory goes, if nothing creates something, in terms of temporal nature, nothing can destroy it either. It's part of a self-contained loop. God could walk in from of a bus, and it would just pass through him or shatter. Or maybe knock him over but he'd get back up again.

And btw, there are no restrictions on a set form, or anything else, it's just a being who is able to control what affects them and what does not. God wants to be a cheerleader? Bring it on!

You either know what a deity is, or you don't. So, back to the original person who spelled this wrong, you said you never had motivation to look. But how would you be sure what you saw was, or wasn't a deity?

 

[columbus]

so could you tell me how a peer reviewed publishing is supposed to be credible if it can't be verified... i.e. travel back in time to see it happen.

What need for time travel?
If you come home from work and find a sink full of dishes, do you need time travel to know that someone fixed a meal without cleaning up?
In fact, being familiar with your household you could probably figure out at a glance who, what and about when it happened. And then infer a whole bunch of other stuff. Because inference is a powerful tool for sorting out the reality. We do it all the time. More often really than direct observation.

I mean... I have no way of traversing the entire universe and beyond to see if I find God right?

You don't need to.
We both probably believe that a clear daytime sky on earth is always blue.

We don't need to observe the sky from every point on earth at the same time to have a solid belief about that. We can infer it, partly based on our own observations but also the complete lack of evidence that it's ever been another color, for all of human history.

Of course, we couldn't prove that to someone who prefers to believe differently. Because to the extent that someone's worldview is based on preference (Faith), rather than evidence and reason (Knowledge), they could believe almost anything.

No matter how wrong it is.
Tom