Why is it so important that God exists?
Offline I've been reading some Theist material, and they seem so willing to hold on to the belief no matter what.
'Oh X theory, doesn't fit? It's not true!'
'Oh, science can't explain Y, it must be God!'
I myself would rather keep X, and find out about Y. These people however, won't.
I've met few Theists that don't think like this.
This is what pissed me off at Haisch's book. He gets into the meditation of the infinite consciousness NDEs etc.., and to support it basically says 'Wouldn't it be nice!' With all the otherwise good content he just had to throw that in and basically ruined it.
It is these types of arguments that piss me off. That they would rather disregard science explanation as awesome as it is and just disregard it or butcher it.
So why is it so important to them that God exists?
- Login to post comments
People tend to be afraid of the unknown and death is the ultimate unknown so a afterlife is comforting.
That and they bought into it and to change positions would be admitting that they were duped, people seem willing to do anything to avoid admitting they made a mistake.
bodhi
Yes, there would be no more "jesus take the wheel", "if it's god's will" , "god will protect us" etc. No invisible means of support.
This statement actually makes me feel sad for you. You are missing out on so much by thinking this way.
I was a theist once. Some of the darkest times in my life were when I was trying to "figure out" god. Then I began to read, think, and talk to some very intelligent freethinkers...I slowly began to let it all go, it was liberating. I continue to evolve, and my life has more meaning, purpose, and hope than it ever has before.
The point is obvious. If you credit god for the good things in life, you must also blame god for the things that are not so great.
God may be love, but God is ALSO cancer.
As spiderman says, with great power, comes great resposibility.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I pity you. I really do. Even if you believe in god, you clearly are not using the gift he gave you to its fullest. You live your brief existence under the thumb of rules and obligations you've forced upon yourself - and you do it for the fleeting hope of an eternity of boredom. I would wager that, because of this, you don't really know how to love or enjoy the present as somebody who is free as I am can. I think you may be jealous of that, and you know what, you SHOULD be.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yellow is good, "Atheists LOVE Too" !
Paisley said he's a deist,so is god plays no role in the purpose of his life anyway.Am I missing something?
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
I have taken the atheistic point of view into account and I fail to see how it provides one with ultimate faith and hope.
That everything is ultimately working out for a greater good. This is admittedly requires an element of faith and I fully embrace it.
Agreed. However, I do not hold the Bible to be authoritative. So your point is irrelevant.
Love is eternal. This is what basically separates believers from unbelievers.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, this is not correct. I am not a deist. I believe that God is both within (immanent) and without (transcendent). The technical term for this form of theism is called "panentheism."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What is the "atheistic point of view"?
What is "ultimate faith"?
Hope for what?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
This depends upon what you call the "afterlife."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Faith is "letting go, and letting God." This is what I find to be ultimately liberating.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"letting go" of what?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Rationality, thinking for oneself and actually trying to do something useful rather than praying.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
My theology is not based on spiderman.
Without illness, there would be no healing. Without death, there would be no rebirth. Faith is seeing the whole picture and realizing that there is beauty even in tragedy.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm going to be "reborn" as 200 lbs of atoms, molecules and heat.
Its not beauty; it just is.
Beauty is BOOBS
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
You are operating under a false assumption - that your theological view reflects mine. It doesn't. I do not believe in the "god" that you reject.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
A worldview devoid of eternal hope.
That everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Fear
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You're right. It's not beautiful. This is what separates my worldview from yours.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Fear" of what ?
Inner peace, serenity.
Yes.
Love that is eternal (a.k.a. God).
No, eternal love is a greater good.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Whatever is causing you psychological insecurity.
Wrong, I believe the universe is eternal.
Something cannot come from nothing, hence, something can never become nothing. No 'hope' is needed.
What "greater good" is there?
Hope in this case is a wasted emotion and possibly psychoneurotic on your part, because you have no control over what happens in reference to eternity.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
You are projecting.
It seems like you are the individual who has fears.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
But nothing is causing me "psychological insecurity".
So now I can't have "faith" ?
Nobody said it was. (Although you could do worse. Many do)
Right. So God is love AND hate. Mention them both next time or it's false advertising.
"Rebirth" ?
There is no beauty in real tragedy.
I fail to see how the belief in mindless mass/energy brings you eternal hope.
Incidentally, the belief that the universe is eternal is just that...a belief. It can never be proven.
My faith is not grounded in an inanimate object devoid of emotions.
Eternal love (a.k.a. God).
Hope is a present state of mind. Without hope, one would be in a state of despair. Living in a state of despair brings on high anxiety which is a psychological disorder. No further commentary is necessary.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
How am I projecting? He asked "fear of what?" And I answered "whatever is causing you psychological insecurity."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Those who believe that everything is working out for a greater good and that love is eternal. Without God, such faith would be groundless.
The hope that love is eternal, not fleeting.
Infinite love is greater than finite love. This should be self-evident.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Unless you think that loving someone for a finite time is the same if not better than more time.
I'm not saying that infinite love is necessarily better.. but, I've just never heard of someone ever saying on their death bed, "Yup, I'm pretty sure I've spent enough time with those people that I love and I wouldn't want another good day to spend with them."
So, ins't finite love greater in that it motivates you to do more to earn more love?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Only if you think that greater love = love that motivates one to earn it.
Arguable.
One could also make the argument that the great love is the one that merely motivates one to do good, not to earn the love, but merely in response to it.
Human behavior isn't magic, there's structure in it.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Indeed.
I'm merely suggesting that, perhaps, the motivation is the love itself and the goal is "to do good." The structure you're suggesting is that the motivation is love and the goal is "to earn it."
One example of this may be expressed through some anecdotal evidence.
My father loved me as a child, and I was given the impression that it was unconditional. Since he lived his life well, I wanted to live my life, in large part, like his. Not because I wanted to earn his love, but because I loved him, and therefore wished to reflect him in part.
Or, unless you think that all that you love you must also be proud of, then the motivation could be love and the goal "to make the lover proud of you." This wouldn't entail a concept of "earning" and would not be affected by the fact that the love was eternal, unconditional, infinite, or whatever.
Living your life like you perceived your father's life was less likely motivated by a choice than by having learned your social behaviors from your parents, like humans do instinctively. If anything, you realized that those learned behaviors were by-n-large considered 'good' by your community and thus worth replicating. That is to say, your father raised you well. (Interestingly, I know of several cases where a child was raised into being a good adult by parent(s) who did not love them. It was the parent's sense of duty and responsibility that was the motive for the parenting.)
Wanting "the lover to be proud of you" does indeed require the concept of earning - you're earning that pride. Yes, this does mean you're still not worried about earning the love that's already established as "eternal".
Which actually illustrates my point about eternal love: Since you can do anything (or fail to do anything) without risk of losing that love, then what value does it have? In the above hypothetical, the motive to do good things was to earn pride. The love was irrelevant!
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
See, here's your problem. You either can't read or you see only what you want to see.
It is an axiom.
The universe is the only thing that is eternal.
Many problems here.
1 Prove there is 'god'
2 Prove 'god' is eternal
3 Prove 'god' has emotion
4 Prove 'eternal love' is 'greater good'
See, more evidence of reading problems. 'Hope' deals with the future, not the present.
Here IS my commentary. The statement, "Without hope, one would be in a state of despair." should read, "Without hope of 'eternal love', one would be in a state of despair." (which is what you are really saying) is a false statement. I have no 'hope of eternal love' and it is not causing me to despair.
Also more commentary, if one is feeling despair it does not mean it is caused by lack of 'hope of eternal love'. Despair can be caused by many things. Adding to my commentary, 'despair' does not necessarily cause anxiety; it commonly causes depression.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I didn't say that it didn't entail a concept of earning... merely that it didn't entail a concept of earning love necessarily.
Only if you assume that the love was not a reason for which why the person wanted the lover to be proud of him.
I suppose so. Yet, I figure that all such notions of "love" and "feelings" can be framed in such a matter of "instinct" and "communal expectations."
My previous posts were not meant to imply that the way I said things could be, were the way things are.
So that constant becomes part of the background like the sky being blue. Irrelevant.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I don't think I understand your last statement.
Assuming I do, let me try to answer.
Just because the thing, love, is static, does not mean that the person being motivated is. Therefore, I don't think your argument applies.
A stone wall is static, doesn't move, doesn't change. That does not mean that I could not be motivated to climb it or that it's existence is not relevant to that motivation.
I think that might be where the confusion lies. I am not saying that "love motivates" in the sense that "love affirmatively acts on something else." If this were the argument, then perhaps it would be wrong for me to say that an "eternal love" can motivate something.
That is not the case, however. Instead, I am suggesting that it's existence, like a wall, might serve to motivate someone to be better, i.e., to climb over the wall.
In that sense, it is not irrelevant... the assertion I was attempting to argue.
Humans tend to inertia just like everythign else, it's only some dynamic (a change in environment for instance) that motivates new behavior. We ascribe all manner of things to love, but that doens't make love the real motivator. It's a corrolation as causation fallacy.
Love that you have to earn motivates because of the dynamic of potential loss. Wanting positive attention from someone who loves you is motivated by the wish for positive attention which in turn is likely motivated by a perception of not having received 'enough' positive attention - a dynamic.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I never said it was.
That is why I am not saying that it is the cause.. merely suggesting the possibility that is relevant to the "being better" in the particular case.
I realize that is what you are trying to argue.
Are you suggesting that positive attention and love are synonymous? I wouldn't.
I will try to put this in your own words:
Wanting positive attention, e.g., pride, from someone who loves you is motived by the wish for the positive attention, e.g., pride, which in turn is likely motivated by a perception of not having received "enough" positive attention, e.g., pride--a dynamic.
Where, in that little statement, can it be said that "someone's love for someone" is necessarily irrelevant to that someone's want of positive attention? or that this "want for positive attention" is necessarily dependent about the non-eternality of love?
Of course.. this is assuming that "love" and "pride" are different things, i.e., that you can love without being prideful.
You think everyone is fearful
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Love can predicate pride, but pride can exist without love. Ask any father who loves his son, but is ashamed of his son's deeds or personality if love needs or generates pride. It doesn't.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Agreed.
Indeed it doesn't. Instead, it suggests that it may be relevant.
I keep on saying, this is what I was arguing against, your statement:
Next issue:
I said:
The parts to focus on for what I was saying here are "not relevant to that motivation" and "possibility that [it] is relevant."
You asserted that an "eternal love" makes love "irrelevant to motivation," see above.
I am suggesting that this assertion is not necessarily so.
Whether a love is infinite or finite, it still exists, and its existence can act as a factor in someone's motivation.
Finite love, and conditional love can be highly motivating because of the possibility of its loss. That possibility of loss makes the love more valuable. Like gold, the rarity combined with the fact it can be lost makes it valuable.
But love that is uconditional and eternal requires utterly no action to maintain. I suggest that it even makes it meaningless. You need to sidestep this romantic notion that love is innately valuable to get my point, I think.
Paisley's "God is Love" idea is what drives me to make the point. I mean, if this being or pseudobeing loves everyone, loves them unconditionally and eternally, then why does that love matter? Why is it important to be loved by this something that loves everyone? Why should I care? I'm not special because the sun shines on me, it shines on everyone. I have no motivation to appease or make the sun proud of me. Same with the concept of god as love. What would motivate me to acknowlege this something that everyone else has equally at all?
Perhaps it uncomfortable to acknowlege, but: We value the love of others because not everyone has it. Your father loved you unconditionally. You valued that, why? I'll bet that it's because you knew what it would be not to have that love. I mean, the threat of losing it never loomed over you since you were made to know it was unconditional, but you still knew that not everyone had love like that. You knew that what you had was valuable.
But if everyone had that kind of love, would you have even noticed? I doubt it very much.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
It is essential to motivation.
Either you are actually mistaken or this statement is merely unclear in what you meant to say.
I really have no doubt of this.
I'm not sure of that, but even assuming so, it doesn't cancel out my argument.
Perhaps.
I know that's what you're arguing.
And you need to sidestep this unromantic notion that love is not innately valuable to get my point, I think.
I am not saying it is one or the other, I was merely suggesting the possibility of both.
While it's value may be lessened or not (as you suggested in some of the first quoted statements), and something I may even agree with, there is no reason to believe that it would be valueless.
I don't think my appreciation of someone's love for me (that I also love) can be diminished to the point of meaningless by the amount of people that they love or by the unconditionality of that love.
(This may be less true in terms of the "romantic" type of love, which, to me, importance seems to tie itself more to the exclusivity of the love. But, the "love" we have been talking about, is not necessarily of that sort... and I would suggest that there are different types).
Um.. because you love that thing?
If the importance of someone's love is dependent upon that person making you feel "special" (which, in this case, I can only interpret you mean "unique" in some sense.. then I suppose, no, it would have no relevance. I am suggesting that perhaps the importance of someone's love is dependent more upon your feelings for that person, rather than the person's exclusivity of love.
I can't answer that. But, "motivation to acknowledge the entity" and the possibility of something that has been acknowledged acting as a motivating factor are completely different discussions. We WERE discussing the latter.
Because I valued him.
If he had a million kids and yet still raised me in the same way, I'm pretty sure I would still have valued him, therefore would have valued his love.
Then again, your way of viewing things could be correct--I do not argue that. I have just been stating it is not necessarily so.
Like I said above, maybe.
And I don't doubt it very much. My love for him (and therefore the importance I placed in his love) was dependent more on the time he spent with me, small thought it may have been, but influential in my life.
Love is nothing more than an emotion driven behavior. It can be studied and understood via the scientific method, and is in fact being studied. It has no more innate value than anything else in the universe.
Which is to say, what I'm saying about all this is necessarily so. If you have some real counter-point to make, please make it. Dropping off my efforts with "possibly" is just annoying.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray