Why do people believe in god?

Why would you deny it, if not out of some desire to transcend my assertion?
NO. I just like facts that have supporting evidence and tend to speak out against myths and others that do not. - Old habit from teaching physics, I guess.
... Someone without a conviction in transcendence could not ask "Why bother?"
They would see no problem and be content with how things already are.
More unsupported nonsensical nonsense.

No one asked or even agreed to be born, but once here they make their wants known, and that is only the beginning. Even billionaires still want more and "bother" to try to get it.

The instinct of “I want more” is quiet self evident, but none exists for “transcendence.” The churches, etc. teach that as part of their self preservation efforts.

They collect real, material wealth and promise "spiritual wealth" in exchange. - Quite a good business, and thousands of individuals have started up their own version as the main stream churches etc. don't offer stock for sale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WoW This old thread is taking off pretty good . Why do I believe in God . Well evidence is why . Just because you can't see it touch it or smell it don't mean it is not real . Could be Me delusions yes It is possible . I try to present my evidence . It probably sounds like crankery . It looks like hard evidence to me , but then it might because of delusions . I except the fact that it may look like delusions , smell like them and taste like them. From my vantage point it is the other way around . In my mind it is like " How can you not see it ? Are you that ignorant ? Course I have had enough people on this very forum call Me the ignorant one so I guess if enough people are in agreement with that there could be some validity . Hearing " It is not them it is you as a reoccurring theme in my life and by that working to change Me has not seemed to change the matter much . I have changed a lot and the funny thing is it still looks the same from my vantage point . Maybe I just can't change the core Me . No The last change was to big . That fucking rock the native man gave me did it . It changed Me so much I can't seem to get a grip on what is real and what is not . Like I listen to parallel existence going on simultaneously . I tell you what the one you all would consider delusional makes just as much sense as the one you live in . I don't know . Maybe from my loneliness I created a separate fantasy wold of my own. That is possible . I guess I might not know it if I live in that world . It would be part of my own personal reality . I tell you what thou . My name is being called in the the song more and more and so is my sons name . Back when I only heard my name being called it was a lot easier to dismiss it . Now in conjunction with my sons name it is becoming all most impossible . Fuck just about every song I hear has references in them . If I didn't already do the things in the song I would not be able to put a meaning to them is the funny thing .

Anyway what does it amount to . Does it change anything by having different perspectives . I don't know . It is like playing music and you are all into it feeling the groove and you record it . then you play mechanically with nothing but repeating the notes you know to play . Is there really a difference in the sound that comes out ? We say " How he/she really put emotion in that . Really ? Does it sound the same if you don't yet play the song identical with out emotion ? From my perspective when I am playing there is difference in attitude if nothing else . This I think has the ability to transfer to an audience. Course I think I am telepathic in short distances so maybe this to is illusionary !

Got to go . Later Me S.F. friends . Feel the heat . Summer you old Indian summer . Your the tear that comes after June Time Laughter . You see so many dreams that don't come true . Dreamed we fashion when summer time was new. You are here to watch over A heart that is broken , by a word that somebody left unspoken .

O.K> procrastinating Later
 
Such is my lot, apparently.
Always the groom, never the bride*.
Or whatever the phrase is.

* And I had a lovely dress picked out ready.
 
I believe in God and I have a rational mind.

I wish for the day a mathemitician comes out of the laborotory and says "I have the answer... it's God!" I believe this is what science is the pursuit of.
That's what Isaac Newton did. When he finally hit a problem he could not solve, he copped out and said "god must have did it". The old argument from ignorance, I can't understand it therefore god did it. Of course someone else came along later and figured it out, no god needed.
 
That's what Isaac Newton did. When he finally hit a problem he could not solve, he copped out and said "god must have did it". The old argument from ignorance, I can't understand it therefore god did it. Of course someone else came along later and figured it out, no god needed.
Yes, no need for Thor now. As I explained in post 410 part of which was:
... Although the scientific method has provided an understanding of many mysteries of the past*, there still exist significant things we don't understand so, just as our distant ancestors did, we eventully give up trying and assign cause. Now days this for many tends to be "it is God's will" that the baby was born without feet, that I got cancer, that my son died in a car crash, etc. (The good God works in mysterious ways. Idea that God might be evil is too scary to consider.)

In an earlier era, there were in most societies many gods each with areas of responsibility, and needing some offerings to prevent mishaps:

The drought was because the god of rain was angry.
The flood was because the river god was angry. ...
--------------
* Lightning is no longer thought to be caused by an angry (or drunk) Thor. etc.
Remainder of post 410 spoke of the multitude of specialized Gods more primitive societies had. They knew their gods could be evil - carry off and rape, fight each other and destroy men, etc. We are too brain washed by centuries of "God is Good" propaganda to be realistic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The instinct of “I want more” is quiet self evident, but none exists for “transcendence.” The churches, etc. teach that as part of their self preservation efforts.

The instinct of "I want more" is the instinct of transcendence.
 
The true nature of God is this:

We required mythology in earlier times as a coping mechanism, to explain causes of natural events which were bad for us. This is still true however (as Joseph Campbell discusses in "Myths to Live By").

The myth today, perhaps, is that the nature of God is tied irrevocably to the nature of various religions. But the reality is that religions serve quite a different purpose, which is that they help the "real" gods, i.e. us, to engage in a bit of humility, so we don't get too much of a headswell about our obviously divine status.

/arf!
 
The instinct of "I want more" is the instinct of transcendence.
Please define transcendence. Normally, it means going beyond material limitations. Thus "I want more" could be understood as wanting life after death, but the objects of desire of the rich who "want more" are quite material (A larger yacht, fancier car, trophy wife, etc.) and the objects of the poor who want more are things like a dry place to sleep when it rains, a hot meal once a day (without needing to sit thru the Salvation Army's lectures and group prayers first, etc.)

How can these very common desires for "more" material things be considered to be examples of transcending the material limitations? Again, tell the definition of transcendence that you are using when it differs drastically from the common understanding of the term.
 
Please define transcendence. Normally, it means going beyond material limitations.

Sure.


Thus "I want more" could be understood as wanting life after death, but the objects of desire of the rich who "want more" are quite material (A larger yacht, fancier car, trophy wife, etc.)

I contend that even the rich are not that shallow to merely want a larger yacht etc.
What they want is more fame, more security, more happiness and such.
Like most people.
It's just that the rich hope to achieve that by getting a bigger yacht, and the poor by having a hot meal a day.


How can these very common desires for "more" material things be considered to be examples of transcending the material limitations?

By considering what it is that people want to achieve with possessing those material things.


Again, tell the definition of transcendence that you are using when it differs drastically from the common understanding of the term.

I don't think it does.
 
Billy T posted: "tell the definition of transcendence that you are using when it differs drastically from the common understanding of the term."

Signal replied: "I don't think it does"

But as he still refuses to give the definition he is using, we can not judge the validity of his opinion.

Perhaps we can take his "I don't think it does." as agreeing that "transcendence" is the going beyond material limits? If so it clearly is no more of an instinct than "To get closer to god" is. What this nearly universal "I want more" seem to be is an instinct to hope for and try to get, more material wealth.* - Nothing about going beyond the material - that idea is TAUGHT to many by religious organizations and others who claim to know the way to go beyond the material, get everlasting life or at least a better form of life after death, when they are reincarnated again.

--------------
* Which may included the secondary non-material benefits that Signal mentioned, such as fame, influence, power, etc. based on that greater material wealth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Always a bride's maid never a bride.


And I agree with Geoff! :mad:

And another is drawn into the Cult of Geoff.

I hope you're some kind of glistening slave girl; the Temple's a bit heavy on bulky hairy drummers and harem guards at the moment. It's getting a bit uncomfortable in the elevators. 8'x10' glossies may be sent via PM.
 
Back
Top