One Global Faith -- Is It Possible?

[DigitalShadow]

Mine is a pursuit of good karma. Golden Rule, if you have faith or not, is the way to live.

And to that end I agree to let all believe or not believe as they wish. I offer to share what I believe to others but do not compel anyone to believe as I do nor punish them if they don't. I do not tell them either that it is the foolish traditions of their fathers. Let each believe and practice as they see fit as long as it does not restrict my freedom to do the same.

Ben Raines

I agree 100%

I offer my opinion when it is asked of me (this thread did start with a question to members of the forum), but I do not look down on those who disagree as I know that I may very well be wrong. In fact, I truly enjoy conversing with people I disagree with since there is greater opportunity to learn something :)

[Guest Godless]

Besides, an atheistic world paradigm is just as faith based as is a theistic one.

-a-train

Only because of the current religious atmosphere in the world. Belief in God is the norm in today's society, and I'll admit that it takes some faith to go against that. In a world where belief in God was virtually non-existant, however, no faith would be required to disbelieve in him. Belief in God is something that is learned. We are all born atheists. People who are never taught to believe in God require no faith to disbelieve in him.

I am sure that the intellectuals think that they will be able to disprove religion sooner or later. Strength in the arm of man and the wisdom of man. They don't need any God to tell them what to do.

It's not so much a matter of disproving religion (or God) as making it obsolete.

[BenRaines]

Interesting that it takes FAITH to NOT believe in God. I always thought it was lack of faith that lead to disbelief in God. LOL

Ben Raines

[candyprpl]

Because the alternative is unpleasant. People want there to be more to life and for there to be judgement and accountability. Whether any of the current religions are correct or not, I don't think anyone can dispute that at least the vast majority of religions are man-made and are born out of those basic desires.

(Out of curiosity)What do Atheists and Agnostics believe in? Is there alternative unpleasant? Where is judgment and accountability in this?

My son was in a rehab program where they used the '12 Step' system -- a counselor was asked why they had to pray to a God they didn't think existed. The counselor asked them to picture a time they were driving around under the influence, maybe had drugs or open containers in the car and suddenly see a police car pull up behind them. You know you're going to jail if they pull you over -- what's usually the first thing out of your mouth, when your heart starts racing -- "Oh God, help me get out of this one." Or just plain, "O God."

That's who you pray to.

So if all religion is man-made (and I'm not saying it's not) is God man-made? Why the visceral feeling to pray when we're in a bad situation?

[Guest Godless]

Interesting that it takes FAITH to NOT believe in God. I always thought it was lack of faith that lead to disbelief in God. LOL

Ben Raines

The nature of our society is one that causes people to lose friends and alienate themselves from family members simply for losing their faith in God. Yet they choose that path anyway because they believe that it's the best one for them. It took a great deal faith for me to go against everything I was raised to believe, knowing that it would create a great deal of tension between me and my family. My faith wasn't in the non-existence of God, but rather in the belief that rejecting him was what made the most sense to me, despite the opposition that would surely follow.

[Guest Godless]

So if all religion is man-made (and I'm not saying it's not) is God man-made? Why the visceral feeling to pray when we're in a bad situation?

I never get that feeling, and I'm sure there are plenty of nonbelievers who can say the same. An army chaplain once said, "There are no atheists in foxholes". I can tell you from personal experience that this is simply not true. Sure, there may be some "fair-weather" unbelievers out there, but I'm pretty sure they're a minority.

[DigitalShadow]

(Out of curiosity)What do Atheists and Agnostics believe in?

There is no atheist or agnostic doctrine or set of beliefs. The only thing that atheists have in common is their lack of belief in God. Your question is like asking someone who doesn't like ice cream what their favorite flavor of ice cream is... it just doesn't make sense.

Is there alternative unpleasant? Where is judgment and accountability in this?

Very few people are atheist or agnostic because there is a natural need for there to be a greater judgement and accountability that religions provide with punishments/rewards after we die.

My son was in a rehab program where they used the '12 Step' system -- a counselor was asked why they had to pray to a God they didn't think existed. The counselor asked them to picture a time they were driving around under the influence, maybe had drugs or open containers in the car and suddenly see a police car pull up behind them. You know you're going to jail if they pull you over -- what's usually the first thing out of your mouth, when your heart starts racing -- "Oh God, help me get out of this one." Or just plain, "O God."

That's who you pray to.

Most people have that reaction because they are raised to believe there is a God and even if they don't personally think there is a God, they are willing to latch on to any hope in an emergency. In serious panic situations, I honestly don't think of God, I simply think "oh crap" and try to think of how I am going to get myself out of this situation, rather than hoping some higher power magically saves me.

So if all religion is man-made (and I'm not saying it's not) is God man-made?

If religion is man-made, then yes the concept of God is man-made as well.

Why the visceral feeling to pray when we're in a bad situation?

Adrenaline? Endorphins being released in response? Also personal experiences seem to vary since I don't really feel anything when I pray no matter what the situation. Feelings come and go for a variety of reasons, assuming it is God or a higher power is a bit of a stretch. Sort of like people who see a UFO (an object in the sky that they can't identify) and immediately assume it is of extra terrestrial origin rather than a number of other far more likely possibilities. Why? because they already want to believe and it is simple confirmation bias.

In any case, no offense is meant. You seem genuinely curious so I answered as honest and straightforward as possible with my personal opinion.

[candyprpl]

Because the alternative is unpleasant. People want there to be more to life and for there to be judgement and accountability. Whether any of the current religions are correct or not, I don't think anyone can dispute that at least the vast majority of religions are man-made and are born out of those basic desires.

This statement is why I asked the question about Atheists and Agnostics. Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make with the above statement. (You were addressing my question, 'why have faith?'

No offense taken -- I am just curious -- and I appreciate your response.

Edited October 14, 2008 by candyprpl
just wanted to add something

[DigitalShadow]

This statement is why I asked the question about Atheists and Agnostics. Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make with the above statement. (You were addressing my question, 'why have faith?'

No offense taken -- I am just curious -- and I appreciate your response.

What I meant by that statement is that I think many people have faith because the alternative (not having faith) is unpleasant to them. Religions present something that people want to believe in whether they are true or not. In my opintion, that is how the first religions came to be; a definite answer whether it is right or wrong is far more comforting than simply saying "I don't know."

I think there are a lot of misunderstandings of atheist/agnostic viewpoints so I am more than happy to answer any questions :)

[Misshalfway]

What if you don't want to believe or you don't want religion to be right about God ? What if you fight against it and even tantrum against truth trying to make it untrue....only to find out that there is a God and you can't deny it? What then?

Is this person delusional or believing lies or blinded by the adrenal glands?

There are days when I think it would be much easier NOT to know what I know about God.

[Guest ceeboo]

There are days when I think it would be much easier NOT to know what I know about God.

Hello Misshalfway,

I am SOOOOOO HAPPY to offer this non contentious, fully in agreement, like what you say, response.:):):):):)

ABSOBATOOOOOTLY AGREE.

Not only easier, indeed much more free to do what Ceeboo wants.

[DigitalShadow]

What if you don't want to believe or you don't want religion to be right about God ? What if you fight against it and even tantrum against truth trying to make it untrue....only to find out that there is a God and you can't deny it? What then?

Is this person delusional or believing lies or blinded by the adrenal glands?

There are days when I think it would be much easier NOT to know what I know about God.

That is indeed another possibility. My intent is not to convince anyone they are wrong, but simply help people understand other points of view and provide another perspective.

There are also days when I think it would be much easier to unquestioningly believe in God like so many other people. People are usually tempted by the seemingly greener grass on the other side.

[candyprpl]

DS,

I don't know you very well -- I know you took a break from the boards for a while and maybe I haven't read enough of your posts -- but I was wondering what you believe.

When I professed to be Agnostic (for many years) I liked that term because I wasn't willing to state emphatically that there wasn't a God.

(curious about your thinking) How does someone come to know for sure there is no God? Is it in any way the same way someone might come to know there is a God?

(Just kind of thinking out loud) I know we are getting a ways off my OP but maybe not.

[candyprpl]

Oh by the way, Misshalfway -- there are plenty of days when I think it would be much easier not to have come to the knowledge of God. However, when I compare who I am now and who I was then -- no comparison -- glad to be here.:)

[candyprpl]

Oh Ceeboo,

I would be curious what you think about the OP -- any or all the quotes.

Thanks:)

[Hemidakota]

Same here about what faith or belief is being provided here but telling anyone who has not seen the great potential of this religion - LDS - , "...that the grass is GREENER on the other side of the veil." To see it, to hear it, and then to feel it, it starts with the experimentation of faith as Alma stated.

Faith leads to knowledge and knowledge becomes part of one's life, being ingrained and zealously moving towards that light, which can be seen, heard, and felt.

[DigitalShadow]

DS,

I don't know you very well -- I know you took a break from the boards for a while and maybe I haven't read enough of your posts -- but I was wondering what you believe.

When I professed to be Agnostic (for many years) I liked that term because I wasn't willing to state emphatically that there wasn't a God.

(curious about your thinking) How does someone come to know for sure there is no God? Is it in any way the same way someone might come to know there is a God?

(Just kind of thinking out loud) I know we are getting a ways off my OP but maybe not.

Common use of the term 'atheist' refers to one who is certain that God does not exist, however most atheists I know define the word as simply not believing in God which would make them 'agnostic' by most people's use of the word. There is a BIG difference between stating with certainty that something does not exist and simply not believing in something though. For example, I don't believe that Bigfoot exists, but I also don't believe that it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. Given strong evidence that Bigfoot does exist, I would welcome the discovery of the new species. I feel basically the same way about God, call it whatever you like but 'agnostic' seems to fit best with most people's definitions which is why I usually tell people I am agnostic if they ask.

There are people that are 100% certain that God does not exist but to me that is just as arrogant as claiming to be 100% certain that God does exist since I don't believe there is any way to tell for certain. There are a variety of people that are completely convinced that their version of God really exists and have personal experiences that back this up, yet no emperical evidence. I've seen many people convinced solely on feelings and their subjective experience that their religion is the one true religion. The problem with this is that not all of them can be right since there are a number of conflicting views of the nature and will of God, so I conclude that feelings alone are an unreliable source of determining truth. In short, that is why I am agnostic.

Edited October 14, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[Guest Godless]

Common use of the term 'atheist' refers to one who is certain that God does not exist, however most atheists I know define the word as simply not believing in God which would make them 'agnostic' by most people's use of the word. There is a BIG difference between stating with certainty that something does not exist and simply not believing in something though. For example, I don't believe that Bigfoot exists, but I also don't believe that it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. Given strong evidence that Bigfoot does exist, I would welcome the discovery of the new species. I feel basically the same way about God, call it whatever you like but 'agnostic' seems to fit best with most people's definitions which is why I usually tell people I am agnostic if they ask.

There are people that are 100% certain that God does not exist but to me that is just as arrogant as claiming to be 100% certain that God does exist since I don't believe there is any way to tell for certain. There are a variety of people that are completely convinced that their version of God really exists and have personal experiences that back this up, yet no emperical evidence. I've seen many people convinced solely on feelings and their subjective experience that their religion is the one true religion. The problem with this is that not all of them can be right since there are a number of conflicting views of the nature and will of God, so I conclude that feelings alone are an unreliable source of determining truth. In short, that is why I am agnostic.

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins' religious commentary, but I really like what he had to say about the range of religious belief. He broke it down into a "spectrum of probabilities". I think that this is a much better way of defining peoples' stances on religion than just saying that those who aren't 100% certain are agnostic. We are all agnostic to some degree, yes, but most people in the world see a higher probability one way or the other in regards to God's existence. It is for that reason that we use terms like theist and atheist to define our views despite a lack of absolute certainty of our position.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I myself would put myself in the 6 category, as does Dawkins. We don't know for sure that God does not exist, but we believe that it's much more likely that he doesn't exist than that he does, which is what distinguishes us from agnostics. Anywho, that's just my two cents on the distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

[DigitalShadow]

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins' religious commentary, but I really like what he had to say about the range of religious belief. He broke it down into a "spectrum of probabilities". I think that this is a much better way of defining peoples' stances on religion than just saying that those who aren't 100% certain are agnostic. We are all agnostic to some degree, yes, but most people in the world see a higher probability one way or the other in regards to God's existence. It is for that reason that we use terms like theist and atheist to define our views despite a lack of absolute certainty of our position.

I myself would put myself in the 6 category, as does Dawkins. We don't know for sure that God does not exist, but we believe that it's much more likely that he doesn't exist than that he does, which is what distinguishes us from agnostics. Anywho, that's just my two cents on the distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

I would probably put myself at a 6 as well. I don't know anyone that would put themselves at a 7, but that is the position that people immediately assume you have if you tell them you are an atheist, which is why I usally say I am agnostic to simplify things. I'm glad you posted the spectrum though. I thought about bringing up 'strong' and 'weak' atheism, but I think the spectrum probably better demonstrates the variety of viewpoints among non-believers.

[candyprpl]

DS and Godless,

Okay, thanks for posting that spectrum -- I could see that in society today. I'm definitely a

1.

(question came to mind) It seems that the ones and/or twos have agreed that it's most improbable that we can't have a one world faith. Now the way I post this question could bring up some anger -- I don't know -- just keep in mind that it's all 'what if.'

If the world were made up of ones and twos only what would the world be like?

If the world were made up of sixs and sevens only what would the world be like?

Right now we have the whole spectrum and the world is surviving (IMO) but it does seem headed for doom as revelations are starting to come true.

Silly questions maybe -- kindergarten philosophy I guess. Still interested,LOL!

[prisonchaplain]

It's my understanding that the literal difference between agnostics and atheists is that the former do not address the EXISTANCE of God, but insist that S/He/They cannot be known (a-gnosis - no knowledge). Atheists simply say God(s) do not exist.

[Traveler]

There are some things that are interpreted in order to understand because we do not have any direct way to know of them. For example we often speak of something happening as a “random” event when we do not understand the cause but that does not mean the event was in reality random – only that we did not understand what caused the event.

I do not understand why anyone would think that random chaos is a better explanation of things than a sophisticated creator. Perhaps they cannot imagine the possibility of anything smarter that themselves. One thing I find rather interesting – we only find life on earth and so far nowhere else. The question then is this – Why life on earth. Is life unique or is life not unique. Another question concerns human intelligence. Life has been around millions of years why all of a sudden has human life taken hold in such a recent short time frame.

The newness of humans in the temporal landscape leaves us with the question – are we the end of something or are we the beginning of something or are we in the middle of something. The answer may be that it depends on how we are willing and able to view ourselves. This also defines how we understand and reference G-d. In that we think of him just beginning, just ending or just in the process of what he does.

It is my opinion that we are in the middle of something – and just because we are unable to see what came before and what will be after we make assumptions. Some think randomness and some think of an unknowable, un-seeable (or measurable) and un-understandable G-d. I think we have all that is needed to figure out that we belong and fit into what has gone on before, what is happening now and what will continue to be.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

I do not understand why anyone would think that random chaos is a better explanation of things than a sophisticated creator. Perhaps they cannot imagine the possibility of anything smarter that themselves.

And who created the creator? If everything sophisticated needs an even more sophisticated creator, how did the first one come into being? Did the first one naturally assume that he must have been created as well by your logic? How do you know that we aren't the first ones? I do not understand why anyone would think that an infinite chain of creators is a somehow more logical explaination than life emerging from the interactions of matter.

One thing I find rather interesting – we only find life on earth and so far nowhere else. The question then is this – Why life on earth. Is life unique or is life not unique.

Given that our solar system is the only area we can even check for life and even that is difficult and there are many billions of solar systems in our galaxy and many billions of galaxies we can only see in the distance, I don't think we can really determine anything about the uniqueness of life in the universe. For all we know, ever other solar system could have its own civilization, or we could be unique throughout the universe (IMHO very unlikely).

Another question concerns human intelligence. Life has been around millions of years why all of a sudden has human life taken hold in such a recent short time frame.

Humans really aren't inherently that much smarter than other primates, it's just that we've developed the communication skills to pass on massive amounts of knowledge to our offspring which caused exponential growth of technology and allowed us to thrive all over the world.

The newness of humans in the temporal landscape leaves us with the question – are we the end of something or are we the beginning of something or are we in the middle of something. The answer may be that it depends on how we are willing and able to view ourselves. This also defines how we understand and reference G-d. In that we think of him just beginning, just ending or just in the process of what he does.

It is my opinion that we are in the middle of something – and just because we are unable to see what came before and what will be after we make assumptions. Some think randomness and some think of an unknowable, un-seeable (or measurable) and un-understandable G-d. I think we have all that is needed to figure out that we belong and fit into what has gone on before, what is happening now and what will continue to be.

Personally I think we simply are. Whether we end it all depends on whether as a species we pull our heads out of our collective rear ends and stop killing each other over outdated territorial instincts and unbounded greed.

[DigitalShadow]

If the world were made up of ones and twos only what would the world be like?

That depends on a lot of things, like what God people unquestionably believe in and what doctrine they follow. I will assume you are meaning some type of Christian faith, but just because people believe something doesn't meant they practice what they preach. In fact very few Christians I know act even remotely "Christ-like".

If the world were made up of sixs and sevens only what would the world be like?

I don't think there would be much difference in our country. While the majority of the country is Christian, I would be suprised if the majority of the country actually went to church on a regular basis or lets their religion significantly effect their life. I guess the biggest changes would be in countries literally ruled by religious belief where people are regularly stoned and female circumcisions are performed and whatnot.

Right now we have the whole spectrum and the world is surviving (IMO) but it does seem headed for doom as revelations are starting to come true.

People have been claiming the end of times are near and the signs of the apocalypse are upon us since the beginning of religion. Until something actually happens, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.

[Traveler]

And who created the creator? If everything sophisticated needs an even more sophisticated creator, how did the first one come into being? Did the first one naturally assume that he must have been created as well by your logic? How do you know that we aren't the first ones? I do not understand why anyone would think that an infinite chain of creators is a somehow more logical explaination than life emerging from the interactions of matter.

Given that our solar system is the only area we can even check for life and even that is difficult and there are many billions of solar systems in our galaxy and many billions of galaxies we can only see in the distance, I don't think we can really determine anything about the uniqueness of life in the universe. For all we know, ever other solar system could have its own civilization, or we could be unique throughout the universe (IMHO very unlikely).

Humans really aren't inherently that much smarter than other primates, it's just that we've developed the communication skills to pass on massive amounts of knowledge to our offspring which caused exponential growth of technology and allowed us to thrive all over the world.

Personally I think we simply are. Whether we end it all depends on whether as a species we pull our heads out of our collective rear ends and stop killing each other over outdated territorial instincts and unbounded greed.

. Your question: Who created the creator? So you claim that there was no cause to creation and no caused to that cause? But there must be a cause to creation because things exist. Then what was the cause of that cause and so on and so on. We are no better off – unless you can prove that something exists without a cause and without anything to precede it. Something without a cause makes no sense to me – in a roundabout way it appears that you agree but I am not sure. And so the term random is used but what stopped cause and inserted randomness? We are back to a cause even when we consider randomness. Why do we want to make an exception to everything we experience – that is that all things have a cause?

. There are areas within our solar system that are less extreme than some places on earth that harbor life – but there is no life beyond earth. So we have a conflict. Life on earth is the default and no life the extreme exception – but life anywhere else but earth there is no life as the default and no exceptions. It does not make sense that there is life on earth.

. Your realization that humans are different than other primates but not really different is interesting. Why human pass on massive amounts of knowledge and no other primates have done so despite all the same environmental pressures and much longer time breaks down the theory that something acted on humans that does not act the same on other primates. The only logical conclusion is that humans are different because something different (unique to humans) caused it. This is made more interesting because it also appears that you believe that unless humans change (stop communicating massive amounts of knowledge that makes us different so we become more like other primates?) then the intelligence that separates us from other primates and gives us advantage is not really an advantage and we will become extinct – To be honest I do not see this logic; it seems to be rather illogical (quoting Spock).

The Traveler