The Idea of a God Is Not So Crazy

[Cato]

Looking for evidence of a god is akin to looking for a living indigenous species of palm tree in Antarctica. More power to you if the pursuit gets you off, but please realize its a complete waste of fucking time.

[*Deidre*]

I see your points, OP and agree with most.

The "idea" of a god is not at all preposterous. What IS preposterous is revolving one's life around an invisible being, worshipping an invisible being, judging others because you believe this is what your invisible deity would request of you, and giving money to causes that "uphold" your invisible deity when you could be applying it to better use. (I could go on! )

No one knows with certainty if a god exists or doesn't. But to live life pretending you know one exists and judging others who don't buy into your fantasy, is the problem.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So before I start I just want to make a couple things clear:



1) I'm atheist
2) I understand that many of you guys will disagree with me so please reply so I can have a better perspective
3) This is just a general idea, not even worthy to be called a hypothesis or theory
4) Seeing that I am atheist, there are three relevant precepts to keep in mind of where I am coming from:
a) God is a made up superstition designed to help people cope with the idea of death and uncertainty
b) religion seeks to control people by using false book such as the BOM, Bible, Quran, Tora, ect.
c) There is no verifiable, quantifiable, observable, empirical evidence to support any current theories of a God, Savior, or One True Religion.

I can find no real fault.

That being said, I may now actually say something that will surprise some people:


I am atheist, I very much dislike religion, but I don't dislike the idea of a God, a Divine Creator, and I do not discourage the pursuit of evidence of that creator. I don't think it's that crazy of an idea, I think religion is crazy (seeing as the mormon faith and surrounding christians really put a bad taste in my mouth and my mind does not allow my to believe in any sort of dogma without reason and logic.)


Being an atheist, I believe the pursuit of science would eventually unveil the existence of a god if he/she/it existed.

Perhaps.

I think if a god (whatever that is) were ever 'found' it would be entirely incidental and not the ultimate aim. It must be made clear to folk who think science is automatically trying to 'disprove' god that in fact science doesn't care about a god, or religion, of many of the silly dogmas.

No scientist I know (and I know a lot) has ever said they care about anyone's version of god, or proving them right or wrong.

Any true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny the possibility of a god, and would certainly have to accept the existence of one if given evidence.

Very true.

Atheists and agnostics deny religion and don't focus too much on the possibility of a god, theists usually accept religion because they believe in the possibility of a god, or perhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.

Hmm, I think this might be confused slightly. first off it might be helpful to look at atheism and agnosticism. I am an agnostic atheist, which you actually describe in your point above this one (cannot deny, but can reject the assertions of others). I have no inherent evidence or 'knowledge" that there are no gods (undefined)" but neither do I have a concept of them. I lack any sort of belief in a god. The possibility is neither here nor there, as more or less anything is possible (within reason, which could indeed be the point) but very little is evidenced.

I also think the word 'deny' is wrong. It infers that there is some truth to it and atheists somehow know the truth inherent but reject it. I don't 'deny' religion, I reject it, and all the assumptions, preclusions and dogmas that go along with it. Your points about theists are probably more or less spot on without going into too much depth.

That being said, I think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.

You're probably right, yes. Where there could be a divergence is that god hypothesis should also go hand in hand with 'no evidence' hypothesis. My parents taught me to question and to think, which probably is the reason why I've never been indoctrinated and have always rejected things to which there appears to be no evidence. There needs to be more of this in the world, IMHO.

I propose that individuals join religions only because of they agree with that assumption: the existence of a god. Religions then manipulate that innocent belief to impose dogmas, rules, cultural constructs, ect.


This is my proposal because because I do not necessarily see the idea of a belief of a god very destructive, but I do see the the belief systems of religion to be extremely destructive.

People often start religions with the intention of manipulating. The god theory can actually be secondary. Think Scientology, or Mormonism. Doubtful that Hubbard or Smith actually thought that xenu was a real thing (in fact we know he didn't based on his quotes about starting a religion), or that ancient Jews sailed across the Atlantic. They did it for power, nothing more or less, and to persuade gullible people into giving them more power. No reason to think other religions didn't start for the same reason.

That said, the people that end up following a religion probably do so because they're aware of the ideas and then latch onto them. But equally there are also people that just believe because they feel they need to, or because they want to be apart of a group and if that group happens to be the god squad then so be it.

Speak to a lot of theists and they don't even know their own holy book, or they've never really contemplated a god and what it actually means to think on one. They've been indoctrinated and taught what to believe! which I think is the key. Is the antithesis to what my parents did with me.

[LivingNumbers6.626]

I am atheist, I very much dislike religion, but I don't dislike the idea of a God, a Divine Creator, and I do not discourage the pursuit of evidence of that creator.

I would neither discourage nor encourage it. But science need not look for god so much as it needs to continue to try and learn how things around us work. If god is anywhere there, I agree that we will eventually find him, unless she wishes to never be found.

I like the idea of gods in the same way I like the idea of any fantasy creature. It sounds pretty cool as long as we envision it as relatively pleasant (ie, dragons sound cool until they decide to turn your neighborhood into a slag heap). However, unless he has a very good explanation for what we are going through, I'm not sure I'd want there to be a god that created the universe we live in and has allowed the world to develop as it has. Because he sounds, at best, as if he is incapable of empathy. At worst, he likes what he sees. And that would be scary.

I absolutely agree. Thank you for your input. !

---

Looking for evidence of a god is akin to looking for a living indigenous species of palm tree in Antarctica. More power to you if the pursuit gets you off, but please realize its a complete waste of fucking time.

I absolutely agree

---

I see your points, OP and agree with most.

The "idea" of a god is not at all preposterous. What IS preposterous is revolving one's life around an invisible being, worshipping an invisible being, judging others because you believe this is what your invisible deity would request of you, and giving money to causes that "uphold" your invisible deity when you could be applying it to better use. (I could go on! )

No one knows with certainty if a god exists or doesn't. But to live life pretending you know one exists and judging others who don't buy into your fantasy, is the problem.

Thank you so much for your input. I completely agree.

[Simon Moon]

I am atheist, I very much dislike religion, but I don't dislike the idea of a God, a Divine Creator, and I do not discourage the pursuit of evidence of that creator. I don't think it's that crazy of an idea, I think religion is crazy (seeing as the mormon faith and surrounding christians really put a bad taste in my mouth and my mind does not allow my to believe in any sort of dogma without reason and logic.)

Depends on the attributes you are giving to this 'idea of a god'. Any attribute beyond a god of first cause is disagreeable to me.

Any true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny the possibility of a god, and would certainly have to accept the existence of one if given evidence.

Not sure you will get too much disagreement with most people here.

For the majority of atheists, atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

As long as the existence of a god continues to be insufficiently supported be demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, my atheism will continue.

Atheists and agnostics deny religion and don't focus too much on the possibility of a god, theists usually accept religion because they believe in the possibility of a god, or perhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.

I completely disagree. You seem to be describing anti-theism, not atheism.

This and every other forum has thread after thread devoted to nothing else besides the existence of a god, irrespective of a particular religion.

Religion is the dangerous outgrowth of dogmatic god beliefs.

That being said, I think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.


I propose that individuals join religions only because of they agree with that assumption: the existence of a god. Religions then manipulate that innocent belief to impose dogmas, rules, cultural constructs, ect.


This is my proposal because because I do not necessarily see the idea of a belief of a god very destructive, but I do see the the belief systems of religion to be extremely destructive.


What do you guys think? I need some feed back to either correct this proposal or get rid of it entirely.


Do you think people join religions and follow them without question only because it agrees with the assumption of a higher intelligence?


(I hope I articulated this well enough.)
Also, that being said, I do reject the importance or existence of a god or higher intelligence. I'm not sure if that was clear. I just don't condemn the belief of a god, I condemn religion.

The vast majority of theists do not join religions. They are indoctrinated into them as a child. I believe (based on a recollection of studies I read) it is something like over 80% of all people are the same religion as their parents.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So who's your all-time favorite god (goddess)?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Taking gods as a starting hypothesis isn't silly at all. What is beyond preposterous is taking a god as your final explanation for something.

Boru

---

So who's your all-time favorite god (goddess)?

Caesar Augustus.

Boru

[Metalogos]

To the person who states he is an atheist but then says that he finds the idea of a god or God acceptable, I would simply say that you have to change your stated definition for yourself from atheist to non-religious theist. Unlike some people who
have posted their opinions on this forum, I find it perfectly acceptable to reject religion but accept the idea that the universe must have begun vis a vis a Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover. Rational thinking will reject all forms of religion that claim to know the ultimate truth of our existence or the existence of the universe and that advocate any kind of worship to any kind of being. Likewise, rational thinking and observant discernment will agree that the world about us is one in where all things have a beginning and an end. I can imagine a universe like ours that may be just one in a myriad of successive universes or just one amongst countless other universes in parallel existence but I cannot imagine that all of this existence has no beginning. This does not mean that I am right but it does mean that I find it much more acceptable to explain the observable universe with all its inherent order and wisdom the result of a Prime Mover's initial action rather than the atheistic posit that no such being is necessary to account for existence.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

To the person who states he is an atheist but then says that he finds the idea of a god or God acceptable, I would simply say that you have to change your stated definition for yourself from atheist to non-religious theist. Unlike some people who
have posted their opinions on this forum, I find it perfectly acceptable to reject religion but accept the idea that the universe must have begun vis a vis a Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover. Rational thinking will reject all forms of religion that claim to know the ultimate truth of our existence or the existence of the universe and that advocate any kind of worship to any kind of being. Likewise, rational thinking and observant discernment will agree that the world about us is one in where all things have a beginning and an end. I can imagine a universe like ours that may be just one in a myriad of successive universes or just one amongst countless other universes in parallel existence but I cannot imagine that all of this existence has no beginning. This does not mean that I am right but it does mean that I find it much more acceptable to explain the observable universe with all its inherent order and wisdom the result of a Prime Mover's initial action rather than the atheistic posit that no such being is necessary to account for existence.

When the Earth was formed did it come with common dirt? Or did the magic comets that brought all of the water also bring the dirt?

[Chad32]

Well dirt is mainly ground up rocks and such, isn't it? So yeah, the comets did kind of bring dirt too, as well as everything else that clumped together.