Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by honeyhannah, May 11, 2004.
Or what do you regard as possibilities?
I believe in a universal energy/ mother earth/nature sort of thing.
Personally I think you have that quality.
But when people compliment me I always become confused.
I think possibility is a thought, but thought is a severely outdated possibility.
I believe the "concept" of God was a reasonable view before we began to discover our liberal selves and that we don't have to beleive something just because someone tell us so. If the concept of God was real then wouldn't we have to applaud dictators because that what the concept of God is, he is a dictator- an unelected person who tells people what to do!
i think that there ultimately has to be something out there, but whos to say what it is? we had to come from something, evolution, creation, reincarination....who knows but we were at some point created no matter in what form, so there has to be something out there, and thats all i will let myself believe, because thats all that i can justify in my mind, everything else is just theories and such, i mean theres some ideas i like, but that doesnt mean that they are to be believed....
too much out there
I believe in what I can see...which is nature.
I more or less agree.
You've peeked my curiosity.
I believe in myself, and the lives of the people in the world.
I believe in creating a good place for my children and their children's children to live.
I believe that we are no better than the rest the life in this world, we are just different.
I believe that all the wealth in the world can be found inside people, and not in material goods.
I believe that there is a chance for a god to exist...but i don't believe in the god that sends people to heaven or hell.
Things that are real affect other things that are real in a way that produces observable consequences.
I don't have to "see" it per se, but I must be able too if I were so inclined- and so must everyone else.
We see the universe through our ideas. That is, things appear to be structured how they are because you made a mental construct. Unless you're producing truly fresh data to improve the ideas, most of the time you're really just seeing what is recorded in your brain, ie you will never have the whole object seen in absolutely every perspective (sensing(+emotions)+thinking combos).
So there is no point staying stuck on an idea or thinking the most important thing you can do is choosing to believe in those fixed concepts or not, or wondering if what you didn't even **observe** loves you or wants you to do this and that.
Our ideas (how we see the world) govern our decisions. "scientific theories" or "religious truths" are all utimately ideas. So saying "Well science is just theories i just want the Truth, its what matters" is seriously naive. And BTW, its interchangable, you can say scientific truths (though science accept better truths) or religious theories (religion is just people who made ideas and said "this is ultimate").
Mentally one should make learning fresh ideas an habit, and not only reading books and checking if the author is true but really experimenting, creating ideas (ie experience) and methods; scientifically or not.
This said. I don't have specific personal beliefs about God except that an All-Powerful All-Knowing entity is unlikely to care about dogmas, fidelity or being moral.
There is only one answer
"important" and "love" have no indepedant existence.
Religion has fixes ideas- science does not. Science is fluid and flexible. It describes a reality that s there for all, and doesn't requires ego.
What i wanted to say is that religion is based on the delusion that it can brings "Truths" a là "what IS". That people are wrong to think that scientific knowledge, because of the saying "science is theories", is somehow disconnected to reality.
The language used in science is exact. It clearly states "observation", "interpretation", "theory", "model", "paradigm", etc. Because its how knowledge works (and in every area of life). This is a good thing because it means that whatever you think things are, is just a glimpse at the possibilities.
Actually religion mislead people into thinking that you can have ideas, like what you know trees are, that ARE reality. Its like saying that the picture of a person is the person.
Most people fall into this trap and think that "science is theories" thus not connected to reality.
I think I got it!
that was beautiful
reguarding as POSSIBILITES i have to echoe occam.
i believe in not pretending to know what is not known
AND in nothing HAVING TO BE KNOWN in order to exist.
i believe i have been hugged by what i don't know
and in my heart i hug it back
i believe i don't have to give it names like "GOD" in order to do so
nor pretend to believe what people around me seem to expect each other
to in order to either.
nor is "god" or a god, the only invisible thing it is harmless to hug.
the idea of good and bad invisible things and a war between them
i've observed no evidence pointing at as being other then a human invention
Solipsism works for me.
"I believe in what I can see...which is nature."
I love that. It's really refreshing. Does that mean that that's what you think God is? I mean 'nature'?, or is that unnecessarily complicating the issue?
(Occam cuts with his razor...?)
Sure, It works for me, but can't we reconcile such a belief with all the complicated mumbo jumbo of organised religion just a little bit?
'Complicated' religions take alot of flak because people don't understand them, but when you look at the origins, they usually started out with similar simple insights:
In the book of Genesis, Moses wonders what God is and God says 'I am that I am'. If God is simply 'That which is', as seems to be the case here, Is that not the same as saying 'God is nature'? (If we agree that nature is just 'that which is', or 'everything')
Separate names with a comma.