The Idea of a God Is Not So Crazy

[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.