The Idea of a God Is Not So Crazy

[elconquistador]

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.


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.


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.


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.


That being said, I think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.


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.


What do you guys think? I need some feed back to either correct this proposal or get rid of it entirely.


Do you think people join religions and follow them without question only because it agrees with the assumption of a higher intelligence?


(I hope I articulated this well enough.)
Also, that being said, I do reject the importance or existence of a god or higher intelligence. I'm not sure if that was clear. I just don't condemn the belief of a god, I condemn religion.

[Bibliofagus]

What's a 'god'?

Also: Watch less Zeitgeist-ish bullshit. Most religions are not designed. A case could be made for mormonism and scientology being sorta designed by their crazy prophets, but that's about it.

Christianity designed? There's about 30.000 denominations out there dude.

Sorry. You said manipulated.

[elconquistador]

What's a 'god'?

Also: Watch less Zeitgeist-ish bullshit. Most religions are not designed. A case could be made for mormonism and scientology being sorta designed by their crazy prophets, but that's about it.

Christianity designed? There's about 30.000 denominations out there dude.

I don't know what Zeitgeist is.

Doesn't matter, all denominations of any religions are perpetuated by selfish con men who use it to control people, extort money,  and political agendas. They're all the same. Look at christianity from the beginning, it's always been a beacon of power, from the pope, to the huegenots, to mormons. It's all the same thing, just different mask.

[Bibliofagus]

Sorry about me misinterpreting you.

I agree that control, extortion, and agenda's play a role. All of them 'conmen'...? Not so much.

[Shol'va]

Before we can even consider the possibility of the existence of a "god", we first must properly articulate what we are discussing as a concept. Too often we take it for granted that the other person knows what we mean when we say "god", and because of that oftentimes we end up talking past each other.

[stromboli]

Believing in the possibility of a god is one thing, but application is another. The problem with gods, et al, is that they are distinctly lacking in their influence on mankind. Every religion is traceable to human origins, whether it be the Jewish evolution from a polytheistic to a monotheistic belief, or Golden plates discovered by a farm boy in upstate New York.

Just like the concurrent thread with Casparov- you can postulate the existence and then come up with a whole host of rationalizing that it/he exists. But that is exactly backward of deductive thinking; you are assuming the outcome and then supplying "evidence" to support it. 

A god by definition is not a super intelligence. A super intelligence implies that at some point, we could gain enough intelligence to become that or understand it, which would mean it has an explanation in the natural world.

A god is supernatural, meaning beyond our understanding of what we can perceive in the natural world. Assuming that a god lives forever and created the universe, it would first have to exist in a state outside anything we consider the nature of existence; hence incomprehensible by our standards.

But that also creates a dichotomy, because the god to be involved in human affairs it has to be in the universe. So the god has to be inside/outside at one and the same time.

There may be a god that created the universe, but we have no way of testing, measuring or knowing it, because it is outside of any understanding we have. If it is eventually understandable, then it is not a god.

This is why postulating the existence or possibility of a god is a waste of time, because you can't possibly prove it. On the other hand, you can believe whatever you want.

[elconquistador]

Sorry about me misinterpreting you.

I agree that control, extortion, and agenda's play a role. All of them 'conmen'...? Not so much.

Oh no worries.

And you don't think they're all conmen? Perhaps some are innocent victims to the theist argument and religion? Or do you think the world is perhaps better off with some of these religions?

[elconquistador]

Believing in the possibility of a god is one thing, but application is another. The problem with gods, et al, is that they are distinctly lacking in their influence on mankind. Every religion is traceable to human origins, whether it be the Jewish evolution from a polytheistic to a monotheistic belief, or Golden plates discovered by a farm boy in upstate New York.

Just like the concurrent thread with Casparov- you can postulate the existence and then come up with a whole host of rationalizing that it/he exists. But that is exactly backward of deductive thinking; you are assuming the outcome and then supplying "evidence" to support it. 

A god by definition is not a super intelligence. A super intelligence implies that at some point, we could gain enough intelligence to become that or understand it, which would mean it has an explanation in the natural world.

A god is supernatural, meaning beyond our understanding of what we can perceive in the natural world. Assuming that a god lives forever and created the universe, it would first have to exist in a state outside anything we consider the nature of existence; hence incomprehensible by our standards.

But that also creates a dichotomy, because the god to be involved in human affairs it has to be in the universe. So the god has to be inside/outside at one and the same time.

There may be a god that created the universe, but we have no way of testing, measuring or knowing it, because it is outside of any understanding we have. If it is eventually understandable, then it is not a god.

This is why postulating the existence or possibility of a god is a waste of time, because you can't possibly prove it. On the other hand, you can believe whatever you want.

I would have to completely agree, thank you so much for your input. It's really helped me adjust my entire argument which quite literally is irrelevant now. Thank you so much for your points. Today I really need to get the God Delusion. haha

[SGOS]

For me, the only issue here is what would be my reason for believing in this god?  Specifically that means what is the evidence for such a god?  Suppose you could make a case that believing in this god did extraordinary things to make humans better people.  Even if believing in such a god could be shown not to be "so crazy," (or by some other more concrete metric, whatever it might be), what is the evidence that he actually exists?

[elconquistador]

Before we can even consider the possibility of the existence of a "god", we first must properly articulate what we are discussing as a concept. Too often we take it for granted that the other person knows what we mean when we say "god", and because of that oftentimes we end up talking past each other.

You're right, I just meant in a general sense that Christianity has proposed it to be which is...quite mysterious rubbish in it's self. haha. So perhaps my entire is completely void and mute. Thank you for your input. :) I love the freedom to ask questions and then shifting my opinions appropriately. I've spent 20 years living, thinking in my head. haha

[Bibliofagus]

Oh no worries.

And you don't think they're all conmen? Perhaps some are innocent victims to the theist argument and religion? Or do you think the world is perhaps better off with some of these religions?

I've seen and heard some priests turned atheist, and have no reason to doubt the stuff they say about their motivations while being a priest.
And I think we would be better of without religion right now.

[elconquistador]

For me, the only issue here is what would be my reason for believing in this god?  Specifically that means what is the evidence for such a god?  Suppose you could make a case that believing in this god did extraordinary things to make humans better people.  Even if believing in such a god could be shown not to be "so crazy," (or by some other more concrete metric, whatever it might be), what is the evidence that he actually exists?

Great point :) thank you! It all just really comes down to the definition of a god which is an oxymoron, and the evidence to support that definition. You're absolutely right.

[elconquistador]

I've seen and heard some priests turned atheist, and have no reason to doubt the stuff they say about their motivations while being a priest.
And I think we would be better of without religion right now.

Like you mean when the priests say they had genuinely good intentions?

[leo]

Oh no worries.

And you don't think they're all conmen? Perhaps some are innocent victims to the theist argument and religion? Or do you think the world is perhaps better off with some of these religions?

The world would be a better place without religion no doubt. Taking away religion will not turn this world in to a paradise. Humans will still have the same problems like sicknesses death and war. Most humans are assholes anyway. Greedy people wanting power and control over the masses will always exist until humans become extinct.

[aitm]

elconquistador

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 dislike the idea of a god, because that would prove they are all pretty shitty. The pursuit of a "creator" is why many of us ended up here.

I don't think it's that crazy of an idea

of course not, man has done it hundreds of thousands of times, that ain't crazy.

I believe the pursuit of science would eventually unveil the existence of a god if he/she/it existed.

finding evidence of non-existing things, (especially if they choose to remain hidden) is pretty hard, no matter what kind of science we may come up with

cannot deny the possibility of a god,

I still think one can, given the inordinate amount of circumstantial evidence that shows the evolution of religion and the types of gods man has invented leads to a pretty good conclusion they are made up nonsense.

have to accept the existence of one if given evidence

no one will argue that, I don't think

perhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.

people WANT a god, period

I think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.

as history has proven that assertion correct, you agree with history.

Do you think people join religions and follow them without question only because it agrees with the assumption of a higher intelligence?

people join religions number one because it is societal for many, they were raised that way and cannot not be religious, they WANT a god. They fear death.

just don't condemn the belief of a god, I condemn religion.

In this the 21st century I condemn the belief in a god