Is it reasonable to believe in God?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that God exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[Tcg]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

The answer after 11 pages of debate is still, no, it's not. It has answered the question, do folks desire to believe in God even though it is an unreasonable belief. Well yes, they do. Some even want to pretend that following the Christian God is a loving act. It's not. Any other questions?


Tcg

[Inquirer]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

The answer after 11 pages of debate is still, no, it's not. It has answered the question, do folks desire to believe in God even though it is an unreasonable belief. Well yes, they do. Some even want to pretend that following the Christian God is a loving act. It's not. Any other questions?


Tcg

Yes, I have a question:

Atheism could mean either of two things yet you seem reticent to state which of these you mean:

1. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the lack of belief that gods don't exist.
2. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the presence of belief that gods don't exist.

As defined by you ("Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods") an atheist must be either 1. or 2. which are you?

Be nice to get a straight answer to a straight question before we get through another 11 pages.

[TRANSPONDER]

Quick answer - atheism is One thing - a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of sub categories within that but all within that one category. An atheist who positively believes there are no gods or not one specific god, is a sub category within the one all embracing definition. To pretend that is is a different definition of atheism is wrong, either by not hearing or understanding the explanation or by refusing it and trying to force a gnostic -type claim of knowing there is no god or no gods on atheism, apparently for the purpose of shifting the burden of proof to the atheists.

I hope that's cleared up and we won't have to have this conversation again.

[Inquirer]

Quick answer - atheism is One thing - a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of sub categories within that but all within that one category. An atheist who positively believes there are no gods or not one specific god, is a sub category within the one all embracing definition. To pretend that is is a different definition of atheism is wrong, either by not hearing or understanding the explanation or by refusing it and trying to force a gnostic -type claim of knowing there is no god or no gods on atheism, apparently for the purpose of shifting the burden of proof to the atheists.

I hope that's cleared up and we won't have to have this conversation again.

If you want to describe your own position as inherently one of ambiguity then go right ahead, like I said all along, it's not a position, it's vacuous, an unposition, why the reticence? (as if I didn't know!)

[TRANSPONDER]

The only one reading a position of ambiguity into a simple definition of atheism is you. No god -belief is simple and easy. Introducing all manner of sub -characters and pretending they are alternative descriptors and they wishing that on atheism as 'ambiguity' is just what you are doing, not us.

nice vid, though. I just have to point out that the definition of atheism is simple and easy to understand (except for Theists, it seems) and the confusing complexities were yours, so the Vid rather...bites you in the botty, not atheism. Possibly the Other botty.

[theophile]

Well, that's a very good post and explanation, but is all hypothetical if not theological. Nothing there makes it 'reasonable' to believe in any god let alone the god of the Bible. The natural explanation is perfectly adequate and no god is necessary.

Aside from the excuses about the Flood (I presume) for which there is no good evidence and is better understood as an adaptation of the Babylonian myth to make Hebrewgod the creator and not Marduk, the excuse that God was struggling to contain the natural disaster and not making much of a job of it puts Him in a very odd light.

There is nothing there at all to persuade me that there is a creator god (even an incompetent one) much less that the Bible is believable.

Perhaps I'm still being too subtle?

1) I never meant to suggest the flood as described actually happened. It's just a story. The ideas being conveyed are the important part. (I by no means want to be in the position of defending it as historical fact.)

2) More importantly, what is so hard about believing in a spirit that speaks for life? That's all I'm positing for God's original form when it comes down to it. And to me, this is no different from any other spirit we could be beholden to. For instance, there is also a spirit of capitalism (let's say) that would have us pursue wealth. It tells us what we should do to attain it. Similarly pleasure, race, nation, and family, among countless others.

So call it what you want, but I can't find any reason for the life of me to say that it doesn't exist. (Just as I know these other spirits exist.)

As to what makes this spirit God, that's simply what Ancient Israel decided to call it, when it placed this particular spirit over all the other spirits / gods they knew to give meaning and direction to their lives.

Similarly, I'm hard pressed to argue. But that's just me.

Ok. I'm not here to trip you up or score cheap points. I want to understand what you mean, and what you don't, and post what I think about it.

I'm all for that.

Ok, starting from The Creation and Flood being taken as Myth, that's fine. So what I get is a sort of cosmic mind perhaps focussed (in part) on the earth as well as (maybe ) everything else.

Sure. To expand a bit, I would say God's focus is cosmic in scope. It includes the earth, the heavens above it, and whatever abyss these all reside within. I think we see this once we understand what God is for.

But calling God a cosmic 'mind' might be a bit too far. e.g., I wouldn't ascribe intelligence per se or even consciousness to God, at least not originally, but something more like conscience. By which I mean God is just like any other spirit, one of the many voices in our heads, that speak to us on behalf of something. Trying to motivate our actions and ends. 'Thy will be done', kind of a thing... Not that God is some Being out there able to telepathically reach our minds, but that God is representative of a certain value system (/spirit), alongside all the other potential values that could occupy our will (things like wealth, power, or family).

To go back to Genesis 1 again, you literally have the spirit of God hovering over the deep (/physical world) and speaking to it. Speaking to all the physical beings that make it up. Ourselves included. It doesn't say that God is the only spirit doing so (and as we soon see there are plenty of others...), but God is clearly one of them, and of this primordial non-physical form.

Do you get my drift? God in God's original form is practically nothing! Nothing physical anyways. God exists no more or less than any other spirit around us, speaking on behalf of the things that they do. So I'm really not trying to argue for anything special here. I feel you may be stuck on the word 'spirit', ascribing more to it than I would want to. Hence why I keep wondering how we can doubt whether God at least in this basic form exists. Surely we can debate whether this is God, but not that such spirits exist, and that God may be one of them...

I can roll with using Hebrew myth to give it names, just I can roll with Hindus calling it Bramah, (not Muslims calling it Allah, there are Limits). So- if I get you right - this is a sort of mix of Gaia and Cosmic mind. Deistgod and natural processes including directed (maybe) evolution.

It comes down to this: is it reasonable to supose that it is intelligent, or is it natural (unplanning) processes?

I am very much onboard with any teaching (mythic or whatever) that is in the same spirit as God. That serves what God calls us to serve (life), whether in God's name or not. I'm sure some of these references you make are very much in the same spirit (a world filled with life, where life of every kind can be).

When it comes to evolution, I believe it can and should be directed, and already has been to a certain extent by humankind. Some of those efforts may be in the spirit of God, but not necessarily. Also, from the beginning I've been saying that it's unreasonable to think that God caused the physical world. That includes directing evolution (at least not to date).

To go back to Genesis 1, I would say that evolution is part of the very flux of the physical world that we all find ourselves in. It is inherent to the watery nature of the deep that the heavens and the earth were created from / within, and something that can be co-opted for the sake of life... I'm not saying the authors meant to imply the theory or its application, but only that the two are extremely consistent. (I've honestly never understood why the bible and evolution can't just be friends. )

I don't know whether ytou go further than just draping Biblemyth over an invisible Cosmic Mind so's you got something to look at, but the barriers divide over the intereferce of organized religion. "Under which king, fellow? speak or die".

I'm not a big proponent of organized religion. But if I reverted to a more original notion of the church for example, or better yet the body of Christ, I am very much in favor of that. That's the next step in this theology: physical beings in the world (like you and I) being in the Spirit. Being pricked by God as our conscience. Bringing God and what the Spirit calls for into the world (=Christ)...

The body of Christ (like the spirit of God) is also cosmic in scope. It's like how Paul speaks of it: every single thing can be a member. Each one can answer the call and play its part. Each is equal to all the others and no less part of the whole. Literally a cosmic body (of Christ) all guided by the conscience of God and organized in the service of life. (I am not a proponent of organized religion, but I am very much in favor of the body of Christ...)

***

I'm not sure if that clarified anything, but is hopefully a bit more precise. Welcome any and all thoughts.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

The answer after 11 pages of debate is still, no, it's not. It has answered the question, do folks desire to believe in God even though it is an unreasonable belief. Well yes, they do. Some even want to pretend that following the Christian God is a loving act. It's not. Any other questions?


Tcg

Yes, I have a question:

Atheism could mean either of two things yet you seem reticent to state which of these you mean:

1. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the lack of belief that gods don't exist.
2. Atheism is the lack of belief that gods exist and the presence of belief that gods don't exist.

As defined by you ("Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods") an atheist must be either 1. or 2. which are you?

Be nice to get a straight answer to a straight question before we get through another 11 pages.

Answering your questions (I'm not an atheist btw) would be off topic and this topic seems answered now anyway.
"The answer after 11 pages of debate is still, no, it's not."

Do you have anything relevant to the topic to add? I ask because you seem to want to discuss he meaning of being an atheist in place of acknowledging that believing in the gods is unreasonable.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edited for clarity

Quick answer - atheism is One thing - a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of sub categories within that but all within that one category. An atheist who positively believes there are no gods or not one specific god, is a sub category within the one all embracing definition. To pretend that is is a different definition of atheism is wrong, either by not hearing or understanding the explanation or by refusing it and trying to force a gnostic -type claim of knowing there is no god or no gods on atheism, apparently for the purpose of shifting the burden of proof to the atheists.

I hope that's cleared up and we won't have to have this conversation again.

Are Christians theists? Are Muslims theists? Are Jews theists?

Atheists lack belief in Gods. Anything beyond that, and they're atheists with extra steps.

[TRANSPONDER]

Mhhh. Then we seem to be using 'God' (or indeed 'Word') to just mean the natural (for all anyone can show) physical processes of the universe (wider cosmos/Everything) which, so far as anyone has been able to show, is not intelligent, forward -planning or indeed moral. So I wouldn't use the term 'God' at all, or any other term with Religious or Theological connotations. I know that some physicists do, in a rather punning or waggish way, but it causes so much debate and I wish they wouldn't do it.

[theophile]

Mhhh. Then we seem to be using 'God' (or indeed 'Word') to just mean the natural (for all anyone can show) physical processes of the universe (wider cosmos/Everything) which, so far as anyone has been able to show, is not intelligent, forward -planning or indeed moral. So I wouldn't use the term 'God' at all, or any other term with Religious or Theological connotations. I know that some physicists do, in a rather punning or waggish way, but it causes so much debate and I wish they wouldn't do it.

No. The natural processes of the universe are part of the physical world, not the spiritual world of God. (So let's render under Caesar what is his already!)

The physical world, being physical, is separate from God, which has a non-physical spiritual existence, at least originally. I keep stressing this essential spirit aspect of God and you keep ignoring it. So whatever you want to call it, spirit and matter are distinct primordial elements, not just in the bible but in our experience on earth. Otherwise where else do you categorize things like ideas or values? These things are not physical in nature and they are extremely important. Far more so I would say than raw physical matter, at least in what they enable matter to do...

And sure, I get it, you could reduce this spirit realm down to neural pathways in our heads, or physical words on a page, but that's not quite right either, is it? Such things have an existence of their own. Ideas for example can be shared, despised, or sought after... They can gain power over time and form a real movement around them... They have identifiable qualities like truth or specificity... They have their own way of existing but exist no less than physical beings with hard evidence.

The spiritual, unlike the physical, is not a subject of physics but rather of (moral) philosophy and theology.

As always, I await better understandings from others.