How many of you believe or do not believe in God?

[Fallen_Horse]

Atheist = Believe that God does not exist
Agnostic = Uncertain about the existence of God
Deist = Belief in a God

[thestoatyone]

Or originally; agnostic = belief that if there is a god, that god is of the order of things that we mortals cannot have knowledge of/comprehend.

[Bounce]

To be honest I find it fairly interesting, I'm trying to to get my head around how you use the word. It's the very reason that you're not using it in the Anglo Christian way, no more than that, the way you're using outside of Abraham related religions.
Even Hinduism and Buddhism.

I just lost a really long post

I was just interested in what school of Buddhism you've read about? I've investigated Buddhism too and found it without any Gods or any concept of God... But again, only a few books and visits.

Funny you should say Hinduism, as I have Hindu friends and can relate to a lot of their beliefs. Hinduism is extremely broad... I mean so many concepts of God. It's so complex...

But based on how you're using the word, unless I've mistaken something, you just seem to be making what you're saying overly complex, personally the way you're using the word has so far been a hindrance in understanding what you mean.

Maybe I have worded it wrong... I don't mean to sound complex!

Have you heard of the Gaia Hypothesis? Basically, it proposes how biomass and other aspects of our Earth's properties work symbiotically and in a complex way to maintain homoestasis, kind of like a living organism... We are a part of this process, everything we do has a reaction to it. I believe in this essentially, but also in a shared energy running through Gaia (I know, not to everybody's taste), or at least a sensation...

I think that people can experience this as the 'Divine', but due to cultural, geographical, societal and educational reasons may interpret it as something different. Just like when you say the word "pain", it will conjure up different feelings for different people... The same with "love" or "regret".

So I kinda believe, we're all part of the same 'God' because 'God' is nature and maybe nature has a shared soul, or an energy we detect (I wouldn't go so far as to say it is transcendental as I'm not well researched enough lol) and then we interpret in our own way to be God?

I know, not every one's cuppa chai.

[Fallen_Horse]

Or originally; agnostic = belief that if there is a god, that god is of the order of things that we mortals cannot have knowledge of/comprehend.

Hmm, never heard that.

Wiki:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1]

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people.[4] Some sources use agnostic in the sense of noncommittal.[5]

'Agnostic' was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876[7] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[11]

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

To be honest I find it fairly interesting, I'm trying to to get my head around how you use the word. It's the very reason that you're not using it in the Anglo Christian way, no more than that, the way you're using outside of Abraham related religions.
Even Hinduism and Buddhism.

I just lost a really long post

I was just interested in what school of Buddhism you've read about? I've investigated Buddhism too and found it without any Gods or any concept of God... But again, only a few books and visits.

Funny you should say Hinduism, as I have Hindu friends and can relate to a lot of their beliefs. Hinduism is extremely broad... I mean so many concepts of God. It's so complex...

But based on how you're using the word, unless I've mistaken something, you just seem to be making what you're saying overly complex, personally the way you're using the word has so far been a hindrance in understanding what you mean.

Maybe I have worded it wrong... I don't mean to sound complex!

Have you heard of the Gaia Hypothesis? Basically, it proposes how biomass and other aspects of our Earth's properties work symbiotically and in a complex way to maintain homoestasis, kind of like a living organism... We are a part of this process, everything we do has a reaction to it. I believe in this essentially, but also in a shared energy running through Gaia (I know, not to everybody's taste), or at least a sensation...

I think that people can experience this as the 'Divine', but due to cultural, geographical, societal and educational reasons may interpret it as something different. Just like when you say the word "pain", it will conjure up different feelings for different people... The same with "love" or "regret".

So I kinda believe, we're all part of the same 'God' because 'God' is nature and maybe nature has a shared soul, or an energy we detect (I wouldn't go so far as to say it is transcendental as I'm not well researched enough lol) and then we interpret in our own way to be God?

I know, not every one's cuppa chai.

I think the easiest thing is to say I read most of the basic themes in 'what the buddha taught chapters 1-6.
Basic mythological aspects of the buddha.
4 Nobel truths.
Doctrine of no soul/non-permanence.

Gods are meant to be higher up in the wheel of suffering (not taken in it's full English meaning, 'dukkha') essentially. And the only way to escape is to get outside of that wheel (but all that exists is in the wheel).
If anyone's done a bit of research into buddhism I think you'll know what I'm getting at.
Anyone who hasn't, no buddhism is not saying we're all constantly suffering.

I don't think the earth itself is an organism. I think what's on the earth is largely a set of organisms, and a few raw materials. I know what you mean about things being abstract though.

Sorry about losing your post.

Interestingly some Buddhists claim that the Buddha taught his disciples because just as he was about to leave the wheel a Hindu God (or some Hindu Gods, not sure which) asked him to stay and teach.

[Johnboy74]

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people.....

I believe there isn't much difference between agnostics and atheists when you stop using the word god. Essentially both are viewpoints firmly rooted in reality not spiritual/mystical nonsense. Agnostics and atheists looking at the cosmos as the birthplace and creation of reality as we know it. Atheists rejecting all concepts of deity, replaced by the cold hard facts of the big bang, space, time and the creation of matter from chemical interactions. This isn't much different from agnostics view of an interconnected source, a power, the creator of life. Both fundamentally see the universe as we know it as the origin of life.

In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[11]

The 'Not Knowable' is something which atheists and agnostics both appreciate. Agnostics following the chain if thought that there is no way of knowing if there is/was a creator and atheists knowing that moments before the big bang are unknowable. Both appreciating the unknowable but not turning to spiritual/mystical thoughts in the face of the unknown.

[Fallen_Horse]

I think I am not being clear.


Johnboy, are you an atheist (believes God does NOT exist) or an agnostic (doesn't know if God exists, and has no opinion either way)? If you are atheist, I am wondering what your pro-atheist argument is...

[Bounce]

To be honest I find it fairly interesting, I'm trying to to get my head around how you use the word. It's the very reason that you're not using it in the Anglo Christian way, no more than that, the way you're using outside of Abraham related religions.
Even Hinduism and Buddhism.

I just lost a really long post

I was just interested in what school of Buddhism you've read about? I've investigated Buddhism too and found it without any Gods or any concept of God... But again, only a few books and visits.

Funny you should say Hinduism, as I have Hindu friends and can relate to a lot of their beliefs. Hinduism is extremely broad... I mean so many concepts of God. It's so complex...

But based on how you're using the word, unless I've mistaken something, you just seem to be making what you're saying overly complex, personally the way you're using the word has so far been a hindrance in understanding what you mean.

Maybe I have worded it wrong... I don't mean to sound complex!

Have you heard of the Gaia Hypothesis? Basically, it proposes how biomass and other aspects of our Earth's properties work symbiotically and in a complex way to maintain homoestasis, kind of like a living organism... We are a part of this process, everything we do has a reaction to it. I believe in this essentially, but also in a shared energy running through Gaia (I know, not to everybody's taste), or at least a sensation...

I think that people can experience this as the 'Divine', but due to cultural, geographical, societal and educational reasons may interpret it as something different. Just like when you say the word "pain", it will conjure up different feelings for different people... The same with "love" or "regret".

So I kinda believe, we're all part of the same 'God' because 'God' is nature and maybe nature has a shared soul, or an energy we detect (I wouldn't go so far as to say it is transcendental as I'm not well researched enough lol) and then we interpret in our own way to be God?

I know, not every one's cuppa chai.

I think the easiest thing is to say I read most of the basic themes in 'what the buddha taught chapters 1-6.
Basic mythological aspects of the buddha.
4 Nobel truths.
Doctrine of no soul/non-permanence.

Gods are meant to be higher up in the wheel of suffering (not taken in it's full English meaning, 'dukkha') essentially. And the only way to escape is to get outside of that wheel (but all that exists is in the wheel).
If anyone's done a bit of research into buddhism I think you'll know what I'm getting at.
Anyone who hasn't, no buddhism is not saying we're all constantly suffering.

I don't think the earth itself is an organism. I think what's on the earth is largely a set of organisms, and a few raw materials. I know what you mean about things being abstract though.

Sorry about losing your post.

Interestingly some Buddhists claim that the Buddha taught his disciples because just as he was about to leave the wheel a Hindu God (or some Hindu Gods, not sure which) asked him to stay and teach.

Do you mean Devas?

I know about Dukkha (pain, suffering, discomfort) and its impermanence and the Wheel of Life and escaping it (I like the metaphor of an upwards spiral ).

I just don't remember the teachings about any 'Gods' in Buddhism, unless of course they're talking about Devas (though nothing wrong with labelling a Deva a God because what or who is a God or something to worship is individual and personal).

Tbh the books I've read and the experience I have had has been with FWBO, but will check the one you recommended.

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

The lecturer I had recommended several books, many of them said Devas were God's essentially.

[LMM]

Johnboy, are you an atheist (believes God does NOT exist) or an agnostic (doesn't know if God exists, and has no opinion either way)? If you are atheist, I am wondering what your pro-atheist argument is...

My argument for atheism is this:

There are two possibilities; either god is a callous and unfeeling observer of people’s suffering, suffering which he could end if he chose but which he chooses to allow to continue - or he doesn’t exist.

The first is so improbable – given the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural being – that it can be discounted. Which leaves the second – god doesn’t exist.

But atheism isn’t really a matter of belief or non-belief. I’d compare my view of god to my view of homeopathy. I don’t disbelieve in homeopathy. Homeopathy has no basis in science and does not beat placebo under clinical trial. There is no possible way it could work. So it isn’t a matter for disbelief. Those who believe in it do so despite the lack of evidence.

If someone proved to me that it worked, I’d change my position. But I know it won’t happen.

Belief is maintaining faith despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

Belief is maintaining faith despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary

I would have thought it would be about what we consider to be true or not, without it necessarily being true.
For instance 2+2=4 must be true conceptually.
Something exists also must be true.
But my existence of a human being on the planet may not be a real world fact. I have no way to verify that all of this is real.
I still believe it is real, but that alone doesn't make it true of the real world.

We do generally draw a distinction between justified and non or un justified belief.

A very basic example:
A farmer looks out at night to a field to check his cow is there, and he see's the cow.

Does he 'know' the cow is in the field?
At the very least he believes it is.

And the cow is actually in the field, but what the farmer actually saw was an old rag on the fence, and mistook it for the cow.

If the cow was there, would he have 'known' the cow is in the field?

Even if we 'confirm' the cow is in the field we always rely on our sensory perception from the real world. All you have to do is get a little drunk and you'll understand that our perception can be wrong.
Or more simply than that try to judge the distance of something that is far away from us actually is. I bet you can't judge the exact distance down to a micro metre on your first attempt.

Knowledge must surely rely on at least these two conditions, I think probably others:
It must be beyond doubt.
It must be true in the real world.

The issue is that we can't get past these two things with most things.
Firstly conceptual truths can't be true of the real world, because they're subject dependent.
Secondly most things can't be beyond doubt, because we can always think "it's possible that this is all an illusion because I've been drugged/my brain is in a vat in a mad scientists laboratory"etc.

So, in short, I disagree with what you've defined as a belief.

[City_of_F]

Athiest.

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." -Richard Dawkins

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

Athiest.

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." -Richard Dawkins

Any other forum and I'd expect an influx of "omgz you would quote a militant atheist who wants to arrest the pope!!!" replies .

[Fallen_Horse]

My argument for atheism is this:

There are two possibilities; either god is a callous and unfeeling observer of people’s suffering, suffering which he could end if he chose but which he chooses to allow to continue - or he doesn’t exist.

Hey thanks for your input LMM. To which I reply: If God ended suffering he must also end joy, for you cannot have one without the other.

[Gelert]

Athiest.

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." -Richard Dawkins

Any other forum and I'd expect an influx of "omgz you would quote a cultural Christian who wants to arrest the pope!!!" replies .

Fixed that for you, using another quote of his.

Arguably Dawkins has done more to discourage rational inquiry than he'd like to admit by the simple expedient of being a weapons grade pillock.

Whenever he climbs into his pulpit, it's fairly obvious that while he argues for the apparent diametrical opposite of the men of faith, his modus operandi is very much the same as them. Biggest evangelist of them all.

Just watched an interesting documentary on BBC4 about the work of Jim Lovelock and "his" Gaia hypothesis, utterly marred by the fact that it (and most literature on the matter) fails to make mention that Lourens Baas-Becking formulated exceptionally similar ideas - and titled them as "Gaia, or Life and Earth" as part of his inaugural speech as Professor of Botany at Leiden in 1931 - about forty years before Lovelock formalized the same ideas as such, apparently originally. Arguably Baas-Becking got the better deal regarding legacy as he is remembered only by a cult following of a handful of microbial ecologists for his insights into microbial biogeography, whereas drugged up Aquarians in need of their decadal shower and a change of ethnic skirts everywhere spout all kinds of flowery bollocks about Gaia.

Anyway. When viewed from a systems biology perspective, or at least a top-down view of earth and life upon it, the hypothesis makes a whole lot of sense as a means of thinking about complex interactions between organisms and the environment, although it remains fairly untestable as a hypothesis in the real world goes. But the opposition for it marshalled from a triumvirate led by Dawkins is outstanding. And his opposition stems from how in his eyes the model seems to suppose a very extended view of kin selection and altruism whereas he insists that altruism, if it must be acknowledged at all, can only happen between very close relatives. That's all.

So I do wonder what Dawkins thinks he can bring to the table. As a writer of books for the layperson he has no small measure of success, but only by portraying himself as a scientist, which is a different story, as it's a career that failed in the mid 1970s. Today he languishes in a sinecurial position, last published anything in a scientific journal in 1991 and before then only a handful of papers of questionable importance and a few opinion pieces.

All things considered, the guy is not a lot more than a preacher who chooses a labcoat rather than a surplice as his vestments, so I'd be reluctant to afford him any greater elevation than his pulpit.