Do you really believe in god?

[Aupmanyav]

The two month old that may have been swept away by a tsunami was given mercy also. Maybe one of the best kinds. That two month old's acquisition of paradise was never compromised once. The two month old was better off than the twenty two year old, or the forty two year old, who will have to give an account of themselves, thus risking punishment. That baby, and all the babies who die so young are some of the most blessed people on Earth. They come into the world with Allah's pleasure on them, bring joy to those around them, and then leave this world in Allah's pleasure, then they go back to Allah never once having sinned, or earned the ire of anyone, or broken a trust, or even had a bad thought cross their pure little minds. They will never have to account for any deeds and Allah will never be angry with them.

Unlike myself, who has managed to live 29 years, constantly in need of the forgiveness of Allah, unsure of what state I will die in, talked badly to others, broken trusts, hurt feelings, and have earned I'm sure on more occassions than I care to recall the anger of Allah. I must give an account for all the things I have managed to do both good and bad, and I do not know how Allah will deal with me. Faith is no easy way out. Like lilithu said, it's no free pass. Faith is hard work, some of the hardest work I have ever had to do because it is constant self-reformation, constant self-struggle to be better, do better, be responsible for others beyond your own self, be accountable to Allah, be accountable to yourself, and be accountable to some degree to others who are affected by you. Faith is managing to love others, and if you cannot love then be just in all your dealings and affairs, to preserve not only your rights but the rights of all people, animals, etc. Allah is calling us to hold to our duties to Him, and Allah has included in that duty, a duty to each other. We have to come to understand that everything has a right that must be honored and upheld and respected. Once we understand that we can act upon it, and when act as though others have the same rights we do, we could in a few generations end abject poverty, oppression and tyranny, abuse and neglect. This is what my belief in Allah has led me to realize and if that makes me unintelligent, or stupid, or dumb, or irrational then so be it.

Then, what was the necessity of sending the child to the world for just two months? What did Allah or the child achieve by its two-months stay in the world? You don't get paradise right away, there is a long wait. There is no body to raise the child from, it is eaten by the fish in the sea. You mean a pleasure of two months and a sorrow for the rest of life for others. My mother still grieves for my lost brother after forty years.

One can be responsible and loving even without the fear of Allah and hell. We should understand our responsibility to the society or the country we live in. Or do you mean to say that all non-believers are irresponsible, cruel, wicked, anti-social; and being good is the prerogative of only the believers?

 

[lilithu]

Mod: The discussion is only an extension of 'Do you believe in God or not?'. If we do not give reaons of why we do or why we do not, there would not be much discussion.

How is "God is a jerk" a reason to not believe? It's a reason to not follow God, perhaps even to condemn God, but not a reason to not believe in God's existence.

 

[lilithu]

Why? It is his world. He created it. Should not he be held responsible for a shoddy job that he might have done, and should it not be his responsibility to correct it?

For the sake of argument, I'll go along with this anthropomorphic God that you insist on conceiving of and then blasting.

By your logic if you create a child and the child grows up to become a murderer then you are responsible.

Or is it that by insisting that God fix everything for you, you are refusing to grow up?

 

[Aupmanyav]

First thing, I do not believe in an anthromorphic God. Second, even the growing up is controlled by God for those who believe, he creates the circumstances. So, he has to be held responsible for what a child grows into.

Sola'lor said those who passed God's test are sent to the world as mentally handicapped, and that it is unfortunate that he is not one of them.

 

[spiritually inclined]

After giving it a lot of honest thought, no, I do not believe in any gods or goddesses. There is a part of the brain in the temporal lobe that is activated when one thinks about god or religious themes. This area is hyperactive during seizures, producing spiritual experiences and hallucinations. When the temporal lobe and limbic system are stimulated by Persinger's helmet, the "God machine", religious hallucinations, even visions of God, Mary, Muhummad, Jesus (depending on your beliefs) are produced...the helmet creates microseizures. Yet the limbic system, which is also linked with religious experience, is stimulated by chanting, meditation, swaying, etc., elements often used in religion.

One may argue that stimulating the temporal lobe merely expands one's consciousness to experience a spiritual realm that is interpretted through one's own personal religious symbols. Perhaps, some say, the hallucinations are real and this part of the brain was created by God him/herself to enlighten human beings. However, stimulation of the temporal lobe also causes hallucinations of body distortions, which are obviously not real. The limbs of the body are not really shrinking or changing in any way. If the temporal lobe produces false hallucinations -- body distortions -- why should we believe that the spiritual hallucinations are any more real, especially since they are so varied? (For example, agnostics who believe in ETs may see aliens and UFOs.)

Studies in twins show that there is a genetic factor involved in how religious a person is.

A good word to google to study this in depth is "neurotheology" and "religiosity in twins".

Despite my atheism, I still have strong religious inclinations, as my screen name implies. But I don't know what to do with them as of now.

James

 

[spiritually inclined]

I cannot reconcile a loving God with the holocaust.

James

 

[lilithu]

I cannot reconcile a loving God with the holocaust.

Neither could a lot of Jews.

Tho I'm not sure why so many of us stop with the Holocaust. What about Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur?

 

[lilithu]

First thing, I do not believe in an anthromorphic God. Second, even the growing up is controlled by God for those who believe, he creates the circumstances. So, he has to be held responsible for what a child grows into.

As I said, you're arguing with a straw man, in this case with a God in which you don't believe. And yet you are ascribing to "him" all the attributes necessary to justify your position over that of the non-existent God.

Very clever... *yawn.*

 

[Storm]

After giving it a lot of honest thought, no, I do not believe in any gods or goddesses. There is a part of the brain in the temporal lobe that is activated when one thinks about god or religious themes. This area is hyperactive during seizures, producing spiritual experiences and hallucinations. When the temporal lobe and limbic system are stimulated by Persinger's helmet, the "God machine", religious hallucinations, even visions of God, Mary, Muhummad, Jesus (depending on your beliefs) are produced...the helmet creates microseizures. Yet the limbic system, which is also linked with religious experience, is stimulated by chanting, meditation, swaying, etc., elements often used in religion.

One may argue that stimulating the temporal lobe merely expands one's consciousness to experience a spiritual realm that is interpretted through one's own personal religious symbols. Perhaps, some say, the hallucinations are real and this part of the brain was created by God him/herself to enlighten human beings. However, stimulation of the temporal lobe also causes hallucinations of body distortions, which are obviously not real. The limbs of the body are not really shrinking or changing in any way. If the temporal lobe produces false hallucinations -- body distortions -- why should we believe that the spiritual hallucinations are any more real, especially since they are so varied? (For example, agnostics who believe in ETs may see aliens and UFOs.)

Studies in twins show that there is a genetic factor involved in how religious a person is.

A good word to google to study this in depth is "neurotheology" and "religiosity in twins".

Despite my atheism, I still have strong religious inclinations, as my screen name implies. But I don't know what to do with them as of now.

James

It's been a while since I read Why God Won't Go Away, and the science of it was admittedly over my head, but as I recall, they demonstrated that mystical trance states are neurologically dissimilar from seizures and hallucinations. For one thing, trance states are characterized by altered functioning of the occipital pareital (sp?) lobe.

Also, you implied that hallucination is a part of the trance states - body distortion and the like - which simply isn't so.

Neurotheology is fascinating, but (like all science) it's neutral on the question of God. Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili had the grace (and common sense) to recognize that.

 

[Storm]

I cannot reconcile a loving God with the holocaust.

James

Fair enough, but what if it's not that simple?

What if God isn't the benevolent (or malevolent) omnimax parent, but the source of life and consciousness? There are alternative beliefs to the Abrahamic monotheisms, and theism in general, you know.

 

[Yerda]

*I* believe that the Spirit speaks through our conscience.

Would it be rude of me to ask how you might come to believe this type of thing?

The only difference being our perception of separateness.

I don't really understand this.

Believe it or not, I believe this to be saying essentially the same thing, except that one uses a language of theism while the latter uses non-theistic language.

I get what you mean. Sometimes I think a lot of the debate between theists and atheists is not so much about reality but the symbols we use to discuss it.

Cheers, Lilith.

 

[lilithu]

It's been a while since I read Why God Won't Go Away, and the science of it was admittedly over my head, but as I recall, they demonstrated that mystical trance states are neurologically dissimilar from seizures and hallucinations. For one thing, trance states are characterized by altered functioning of the occipital pareital (sp?) lobe.

Also, you implied that hallucination is a part of the trance states - body distortion and the like - which simply isn't so.

Neurotheology is fascinating, but (like all science) it's neutral on the question of God. Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili had the grace (and common sense) to recognize that.

Spiritually inclined was giving his reasoning for why he does not believe.

I hope that your response to him was simply the technical nit-picking that we UUs can be so prone to do (myself included) rather than an argument against his personal perspectives. Because one could interpret your post as arguing with him about his disbelief.

 

[Storm]

Spiritually inclined was giving his reasoning for why he does not believe.

I hope that your response to him was simply the technical nit-picking that we UUs can be so prone to do (myself included) rather than an argument against his personal perspectives. Because one could interpret your post as arguing with him about his disbelief.

Howso? IMO, he misrepresented (or misunderstood) the science, plain and simple.

 

[lilithu]

Howso? IMO, he misrepresented (or misunderstood) the science, plain and simple.

First off, there is nothing "plain and simple" about that field of science. It is all interpretation, influenced by one's own biases.

Secondly, I just wanted to be clear that you were arguing with him about the science and NOT about his personal conclusions.


Btw, were you at General Assembly, seeing how it was in your town?

 

[Storm]

First off, there is nothing "plain and simple" about that field of science. It is all interpretation, influenced by one's own biases.

Secondly, I just wanted to be clear that you were arguing with him about the science and NOT about his personal conclusions.

I didn't say the science was simple, Lilithu, just that my opinion of his post was.
Besides, even if I were arguing with his conclusions, isn't that kinda the whole point of this subforum? I'm really not sure what you're taking exception to.

Btw, were you at General Assembly, seeing how it was in your town?

No, I missed it. Life's been crazy lately, plus I grew dissatisfied with the first church I found.

 

[Storm]

Originally Posted by lilithu
The only difference being our perception of separateness.

I don't really understand this.

If I may....

We're all born as molecules in the hearts of a billion stars, molecules that do not understand politics, policies and differences. In a billion years we, foolish molecules forget who we are and where we came from. Desperate acts of ego. We give ourselves names, fight over lines on maps. And pretend our light is better than everyone else's. ~ J. Michael Strazynski, Babylon 5

On this at least, I think Lilithu and I can agree: the heart of the panentheist prespective is that we, like everything else, are part of God. God is not some separate entity observing us and wanting us to do x instead of y. If God wants us to do anything, we need only look within to discover it, because - as parts of God - it's what we want, too.

 

[spiritually inclined]

It's been a while since I read Why God Won't Go Away, and the science of it was admittedly over my head, but as I recall, they demonstrated that mystical trance states are neurologically dissimilar from seizures and hallucinations. For one thing, trance states are characterized by altered functioning of the occipital pareital (sp?) lobe.

Yet the limbic system may be what ties all of these experiences together, as certain things, such as swaying, chanting, etc. stimulate the limbic system which is also susceptable to seizure activity. There are differences in NDEs produced by various means -- fear, drugs, coming near death. I do not dispute that there are differences in mystical experiences depending on their origin. But I think it is clear that such experiences have their origin in the brain, and they do not seem reliable in confirming an objective spiritual reality.

Religious/spiritual experience seems to be a product of evolution, and studies in twins indicate that religiosity or a lack thereof is at least partially genetic.

James

 

[lilithu]

Besides, even if I were arguing with his conclusions, isn't that kinda the whole point of this subforum? I'm really not sure what you're taking exception to.

I reacted because to me it is one of the fundamental principles of UU that we accept people's personal statements of belief. That's how we get along with each other in congregations as theologically diverse as ours. If someone says, "*I* don't believe in God(s) and here's why..." I don't argue with them about that. If someone says, "*I* can't reconcile a loving God with the holocaust" I don't argue with them on that either. If otoh, someone says, "God does not exist and here's why...." or "A loving God cannot exist because of the holocaust" then yes, I would argue.

But mainly I reacted because I know you're UU and spiritually_inclined had just said in another forum how he appreciated that UUs were welcoming to atheists. Since he doesn't know you're a UU, I suppose I should have just let it go. My baggage.

No, I missed it. Life's been crazy lately, plus I grew dissatisfied with the first church I found.

Are/were you with the First Unitarian Church of Portland? Did you at least see the article in the local paper about UUs featuring my friend Joseph?

 

[Storm]

But I think it is clear that such experiences have their origin in the brain, and they do not seem reliable in confirming an objective spiritual reality.

Confirming, no. Disputing, also no. What I don't get is why you "think it is clear that such experiences have their origin in the brain". Assume for the sake of argument that there is an objective spirituality. Can you think of one reason why it wouldn't have exactly the same affect?

FTR, the only works I've studied on the topic are those of the aforementioned Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili, who were quite adamant that their work didn't really help either side of the God debate. Are you familiar with another authority?

Religious/spiritual experience seems to be a product of evolution,

Oh, uncontested. But again, that doesn't really help either side of the issue. If there is a God, mysticism and religion evolved in response to it, if there isn't, it must serve another purpose.

and studies in twins indicate that religiosity or a lack thereof is at least partially genetic.

Now this is new territory for me, though unsurprising. Any reference recommendations?

Also, are you familiar with Huston Smith's idea of "spiritual personality types?"

 

[Storm]

I reacted because to me it is one of the fundamental principles of UU that we accept people's personal statements of belief. That's how we get along with each other in congregations as theologically diverse as ours. If someone says, "*I* don't believe in God(s) and here's why..." I don't argue with them about that. If someone says, "*I* can't reconcile a loving God with the holocaust" I don't argue with them on that either. If otoh, someone says, "God does not exist and here's why...." or "A loving God cannot exist because of the holocaust" then yes, I would argue.

But mainly I reacted because I know you're UU and spiritually_inclined had just said in another forum how he appreciated that UUs were welcoming to atheists. Since he doesn't know you're a UU, I suppose I should have just let it go. My baggage.

It's cool.

I do accept all forms of dis/belief, it's just that I come from a family where debate is an extreme sport. Shouting, table-pounding political arguments are as cherished a tradition for us as Christmas dinner.

Because theology is my great passion, I do challenge people's reasons for dis/believing, because I think it's important. I also welcome challenges to my own reasons - so long as they're real challenges and not stupid stuff like 'you're just delusional.' At the end of the debate, I don't expect or even want to change any minds, but I do hope to assist people on their own paths by forcing them to scrutinize their own beliefs more closely than any of us usually do.

It's just my way.

Are/were you with the First Unitarian Church of Portland? Did you at least see the article in the local paper about UUs featuring my friend Joseph?

No, not even that. If you've got the title, though, I'd look it up online.

First Unitarian is the one I tried, yeah. It's a bit too traditional for me, though. My old congregation spoiled me - instead of sermons and hymns, we had lectures and discussions about comparative religion/ mythology and analyses of sacred texts. I miss that so much.