Belief In A God?

[thebatman]

I believe that what we call "gods" are just beings much more advanced than us, perhaps aliens from other galaxies and such.

 

In our primitive animal brains, the only word we can come up with to describe these beings is "god". 

 

I think they are much more powerful and intelligent than us. The same way we are more powerful and intelligent than ants or insects.

 

They are however not benevolent beings. They look at us as entertainment, things to be used. They don't value human life. But they like to be worshiped and loved. I suppose we are just like pets to them, or slaves. 

[Ouroboros]

I believe in a mysterious 'presence' that exists within nature itself.  It is not conscious, properly speaking, because consciousness requires a brain.  But there seems to be something that a person can connect with through prayer or meditation, or simply when walking or resting somewhere natural.

 

It probably is simply the human mind's response to nature or the cosmos; the affection we naturally feel towards the source of our being (nature).  Nevertheless like love, music or humour, the scientific, rational explanation of it seems to detract from its beauty and "magic".

 

It seems to me that truth can be factual - and rational science is the best way to discern that type of truth.  But there are also other kinds of truth, to do with the way we navigate our way through life, and the stories we tell ourselves in order to better make sense of our place in the Universe.  This is why I say there is some mysterious "presence" in nature, because I have felt it myself - and in the "navigating our way through life" sort of way, it seems to be important to me and that I should respect and honour those feelings, not by explaining them away, but in the way that seems most natural, to use those feelings to connect myself spiritually with all things and so navigate my way more succesfully through life.

 

Maybe I'm just cursed with the God Gene and so I've found a way to make peace between my rational and irrational sides.  I don't really care what it is, it works for me (I'm a pragmatist like that). And I call it Pantheism.

 

But I honestly don't know whether to call what I believe in God or not.  I guess it depends on how you define the term.

Ditto.

[Akheia]

They are however not benevolent beings. They look at us as entertainment, things to be used. They don't value human life. But they like to be worshiped and loved. I suppose we are just like pets to them, or slaves. 

 

You know, there are a lot of women who think men think this way about women.

[Torunn]

Polytheist here. 

 

I do 'believe' the Abrahamic God exists, along with all others, but as none of them are mine, it's a moot point to me.

 

In other words: truth is relative.

[Geezer]

A Hollow Agnosticism

 

Chris Hedges

 

 

.......Religion is our finite, flawed, and imperfect expression of the infinite. The experience of transcendence, the struggle to acknowledge the infinite, need not even be attributed to an external being called God. The belief in a personal God can, in fact, be antireligious. Religion is about the human need for the sacred. God is, as Thomas Aquinas writes, the power that allows us to be ourselves. God is a search, a way to frame the questions. God is a call to reverence. Human beings come engrained with this religious impulse. Buddhists speak of nirvana in words that are nearly identical to those employed by many monotheists to describe God. This impulse asks: What are we? Why are we here? What, if anything, are we supposed to do? What does it all mean? God is a human concept that arises from this impulse and the reality of the transcendent. Our idea of God includes human prejudice, tribal and national self-exaltation, morally indefensible edicts, naked bigotry, and absurd formulas to get God to work on our behalf. Religious figures have long found it popular and profitable to pander to the forlorn hope that we can placate or control the transcendent. Religious belief systems endow God, depending on which name you give God, with a variety of attributes, some of which are repugnant, especially if you happen to be on the wrong side of Yahweh's wrath.............

 

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-events/harvard-divinity-bulletin/articles/a-hollow-agnosticism

[ExCBooster]

Voted "Other" : define "God(s)"... it's kinda problematic, really.

[Guest MadameX]

A Hollow Agnosticism

 

Chris Hedges

 

 

.......Religion is our finite, flawed, and imperfect expression of the infinite. The experience of transcendence, the struggle to acknowledge the infinite, need not even be attributed to an external being called God. The belief in a personal God can, in fact, be antireligious. Religion is about the human need for the sacred. God is, as Thomas Aquinas writes, the power that allows us to be ourselves. God is a search, a way to frame the questions. God is a call to reverence. Human beings come engrained with this religious impulse. Buddhists speak of nirvana in words that are nearly identical to those employed by many monotheists to describe God. This impulse asks: What are we? Why are we here? What, if anything, are we supposed to do? What does it all mean? God is a human concept that arises from this impulse and the reality of the transcendent. Our idea of God includes human prejudice, tribal and national self-exaltation, morally indefensible edicts, naked bigotry, and absurd formulas to get God to work on our behalf. Religious figures have long found it popular and profitable to pander to the forlorn hope that we can placate or control the transcendent. Religious belief systems endow God, depending on which name you give God, with a variety of attributes, some of which are repugnant, especially if you happen to be on the wrong side of Yahweh's wrath.............

 

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-events/harvard-divinity-bulletin/articles/a-hollow-agnosticism

Excellent quote.

[boftx]

I voted for "Other".

 

I do not think there is "a God", certainly not some super-being with personal attributes. But I won't rule out the possibility that there might be some fundamental force underlying the Cosmos that might eventually be equated with "God". That said, I find it unlikely.

[Deva]

Although I initially voted "yes", I find God to be very problematic. Can't rule it out completely, but depends on the definition.  I certainly don't believe in Bible God, or some magnified human being up in the sky that is jealous and gives out rewards and punishments according to a mysterious system no one can understand.

 

In fact the whole idea of rewards and punishments bestowed on an individual by some process, natural or supernatural, does not make sense to me.

[seeker001]

I'm stuck between other and unsure, but ultimately went with other.  If there is a deity I highly doubt that he/she/it is within human understanding. Maybe the deity isn't even in human form but something completely alien or maybe it is a force of nature or nature itself. Maybe there is more than one god. I don't know, I'm still developing my point of view about deities and spirituality. I do feel that there is a higher power beyond humanity, but I don't think it cares about humanity nor holds humanity in a special place in its heart. Maybe it is just nature or the force of the universe.  I just don't know, this spirituality stuff is confusing to me.

 

I think that science, math, and rationality is the best way to understand the world around us, or at least develop critical thinking skills to decide for ourselves what to believe. I believe that spirituality is a very personal thing, and how one comes to god/allah/truth/buddah/theForce/cthulu or whatever the hell you believe in is one's own personal journey.

[Kurari]

I'm going to try to put into words what I feel, but it's really difficult. I'll give it my best shot though. 

 

You know how people describe a "light" that just radiates unconditional love, kindness, welcoming, wholeness, peace, joy, and belonging? If I sit or lie quietly then I can experience that. Through years of experience and practice, I can do it pretty much whenever I want. I feel complete wholeness, connection, love, peace, joy, and like I am exactly where I belong. No matter how frantic, anxious, or depressed I am, I can reach for it and feel like everything is going to be OK. The feeling is so utterly amazing. 

 

This is what they call "having a personal relationship with God." 

 

Well, some people call it God. I used to, but now I don't think that's quite it. I always think of a god as being a separate entity with a will of it's own. This...isn't that. It has no "will." It has no expectations, agendas, or requirements. It just what IS. So praying to it and worshiping it is a foreign and pointless idea.

 

Unconditional love doesn't do anything except take you in like the ocean takes in a drop of water.

 

It feels like an outside force. Some kind of familiarity, but that doesn't really mean anything. It's not an especially important detail if it's just a powerful imagination or indeed some great cosmic force. It fulfills a critical human need and taking the time to connect to it makes my life wonderful. Doing rituals like lighting candles and incense, holding things that are special to me, and observing special holidays help me connect to it. Usually I still practice my old pagan observances. Especially taking time to be out in Nature is an EXTREMELY powerful focus and makes it easier to connect. 

 

I still consider myself an atheist, but I define myself as a pagan atheist for the reasons I've stated. 

 

I hope I kind of made sense. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Deleted - was confused!

[Blake]

Edit: I figured this was too personal to share any further.

[greylight]

I consider myself an atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural, the natural world is all we have. The closest thing that I may consider 'god' or 'divinity'  is the universe as a whole. We are "god" and the universe is "god", we are interconnected, in a sense, the universe trying to figure itself out.

[Robot]

I'm not entirely sure just yet. To me, there definitely seems to be something, but I haven't figured out what it is yet. I may never. What I do know is that exploring the spiritual side of humanity is personally rewarding and gives me great hope for humanity.

[ConureDelSol]

No, I don't believe in a conscious, all-knowing god.  Or any of the other ones.

 

Were I to envision some sort of universal entity , I would say I would be somewhat similar to a pandeist.  I wouldn't think that this god actually guided anything in the universe or was even aware of it.

[Geezer]

It’s fun to theorize that multiple universes and dimensions actually do exist and we are but one of trillions of realities that co-exist, but most of these realities are incapable of interacting and therefore are not aware of the others existence.

 

A few, however, are able to interact with other realities and we call these interactions the supernatural realm because our laws of science and physics are not applicable to them or their realms.  We have named the life forms that exist in these realities gods because our laws of science and nature do not apply to them and that makes them appear supernatural to us.

 

That theory is at least as plausible as the god depicted in the bible stories.

[Deva]

I agree with Geezer but instead of "fun," the multiple dimensions idea is rather frightening to me. Maybe I have viewed too many horror movies and read too much Lovecraft. Anyway, it really does seems like there could possibly be a different place, a hell realm or a heavenly one, where the ordinary scientific laws do not necessarily apply. Instead of proving definitively such a place does not exit, science has actually opened up the possibility.

 

Of course if it manifested it could appear like something supernatural whereas it actually is a part of nature that we don't fully understand. I don't see anything unreasonable about this possibility.

[RosebudMarie]

I do believe a god of some kind exists, but I don't have a clue as to details. There is some sort of consciousness, but how involved is it? I believe all of creation has some kind of energy that science doesn't understand yet, an eternal part of themselves. I do believe that whatever god it is had a part in creation.

 

Curious about panantheism. I will have to research that.

[asanerman]

I do believe a god of some kind exists, but I don't have a clue as to details. There is some sort of consciousness, but how involved is it? I believe all of creation has some kind of energy that science doesn't understand yet, an eternal part of themselves. I do believe that whatever god it is had a part in creation.

 

Curious about panantheism. I will have to research that.

 

Hey, Rosebud!

 

I do believe a god of some kind exists,..

 

 

 

The word exist is from Latin existere/exsistere "to step out, stand forth, emerge, appear; exist, be"

 

...but I don't have a clue as to details.

 

 

An inquiry into the "details of” existence is where “meanings” and definitions get in the way. (I'll come back to this.)

 

Curious about pantheism. I will have to research that.

 

 

A definition of  the word pantheism is a doctrine that equates God or gods with the forces and laws of the universe.

 

Alan Watts said,

 

“What you [and I] are basically, deep, deep down,

far, far in, is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself.”

Whether you listen to the spiritualist or not it does seems for many of us  that we “sense”something deeper” than what we are (for the most part) not completely aware of being.

 

More than a few have concluded that we are "the actuality of existence"-- "that" fabric and structure (or whatever one chooses to call it) of existence.

 

After the excerpt from David A Bhadan’s book The Lazy Man’s Way To Enlightenment: What You’re Looking For Is What Is Looking, I’ve provide here, (as a way of explaining a function of words as “neutral pointers”) I want to address, a few thoughts concerning the nature of realizing the "fabric and structure of existence" for ourselves.

 

“The heart of the matter here is simply (and effortlessly) recognizing what’s already so.”

 

David A Bhadan:

 

Inherent in the use of words to describe something lies a sense of separation. When I explain something, implied in that description is what it is not. Language divides and separates that which isn’t divided and separate.

 

Labels descriptions and definitions are definitions are boundaries; they are mental divisions created in the mind [thinking], where in Reality there aren’t any. The mind’s function is to compartmentalize that which is boundless.

 

…In describing anything, we’re simultaneously erecting a seeming boundary with it, and everything unlike it. We say, “Everything that doesn’t look like a bird or a tree isn’t a bird or a tree.”

 

In order to communicate, convey and understand, language starts to take place early on. Babies learn different concepts like, “Momma,” “Dadda,” and “blankie.” However, the word “Momma” and “Dadda” aren’t actually Momma and Dadda. The word “blankie” isn’t the actual blanket.

 

In their true purpose and function, words are meant to help translate the word to the actual, but we often forget the word can never be the thing.

The description can never be the described. We’re all aware that it takes years to learn the various labels for existence, and that it takes even longer to put them all together in a cohesive way that makes sense for us.

 

Words have no inherent meaning; they are simply sounds and symbols pointing to the variety of life’s happenings. For example, one happening is called “rain,” another is called “happiness” and another is called “believing.”

 

In a different language, these three concepts would have no meaning at all to the translator. They’d be merely sounds signifying nothing at all. If you were Swahili, the words “rain,” “happiness” and “believing” would be total nonsense. The point is this: words have no basic meaning at all.

 

Even words like “rain,” “happiness” and “believing” have no intrinsic meaning, even to those who understand English. We live in realms of linguistic fabrication, interpreting concepts based on familiar patterns of recognition from the past and what makes sense to us at the time.

 

Similarly, the word “God,” “Truth” or “Reality” isn’t God, Truth or Reality. The word “God” isn’t God, is it? The word “Truth” isn’t the actual Truth, is it? The word “God” is such a highly charged word, with as many different meanings as there are those who utter the word.

We maim and kill over the interpretation of “our” God.

 

Do you think the word is the actual? If so, the next time you’re thirsty, go have a sip of the word “water” and see if it quenches your thirst. When you’re hiking in the woods and stop to camp out on a chilly night, try to warm up with the word “fire” and see if you get warm.

 

When we mistake words for the actual, we unwittingly lie to ourselves. We deceive ourselves without ever realizing it — and we do it often. In a trance-like state, rarely do we question whether the words we use are anything but a fiction. Fictions are illusory and illusion hurts. Have you noticed?

 

It’s plain and simple; words only point.

 

… if it’s Truth or Reality we’re after, seeing through the limits of words and labels is requisite. Seeing the true function of language is requisite. Transcending the limits of language in order to see what’s actually happening in this, timeless moment - and not what the mind is telling us about what’s happening — is requisite.

 

Mere words lay on the surface, yet point to something underneath. Hanging out at the surface, it never gets seep that the essence underneath is waiting to be discovered. Words barely scratch the surface, yet we spend a lifetime scratching at the surface, thinking we can arrive at the essence underneath.

 

On the occasion we go below the surface, we allow for the opportunity for something to finally “click” — and we see what the word is pointing to. We notice the essence of a pointer — and that which it points to isn’t in the word. We can appreciate the pointer for what it is and notice that it’s in the accurate non-conceptual translation of the word, that which the word is pointing to.

 

As the ancient Buddhist saying goes, “Concepts are like fingers pointing to the moon, so don’t mistake the finger for the moon itself.”

 

We are wise not to get caught up looking at the finger and completely miss out on the brilliance of the moon. Whenever we find ourselves confused or in doubt, it’s a good indicator we’re stuck on the concept, instead of looking to where the concept is pointing.

 

The heart of the matter here is simply (and effortlessly) recognizing what’s already so — and remembering what you really are, non-conceptually. You are prior to, and beyond the formation of words and concepts. (pp.  11 -14)

 

A good friend of mine once said of enlightenment: Enlightenment is when the is no longer an argument with yourself, others and the world.”

(p. 25).

 

That definition (IMO) of enlightenment is only one way of “pointing a finger” to what the word enlighten means or represents.

 

The truth for me is that no one gets enlightened, one just realizing what already is, and that what is, is enough.

 

It’s like a coming home to the home you never departed. No belief, no seeking, no path, no waiting till it comes, no trips to Mecca.

That's not to say that any of that may be help. It's to say that for me, at least, it isn't necessary.

 

To self-realize, for me, is something like what I understand T. S. Eliot alludes in Little Gidding :

 

“…And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.”

 

An inquiry into the "details of” (the nature of, the essence of) what exists--that witch stands out, or emerges or appears to be that case-- I think (along with others) can be independent of any and all of the behaviors and attitudes that are associated with religion.

 

Robert Wolfe has pointed out that “this is not an inquiry into the supposed existence (or non-existence) of a god or gods, but an investigation into the relationship (if any) between the self, that you [and I] are conscious of, and the ultimate [ordinary] reality in which you [and I] are conscious of .” existing--standing forth, emerging, appearing presently. “And this is a discovery which can be immediate and direct, without reliance on any religious propositions.” ~Living Nonduality: Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization  [are mine]

 

I understand the consequence of this “internal inquiry” to be self-realization, integrated, self-actualized awareness--undivided self, the break through "into" the senses of worthiness (self respect), the sense of efficacy (self-confidence), esteem.

 

For what it worth, that’s my take on what could be termed as “G/god” or to use the Tillich’s term “Ultimate Concern“. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RosebudMarie]

Thanks for the reply asanerman! I've inky recently deconverted, so there's a lot I still need to sort through in my head. I've a lot to think about.

[nico]

I voted unsure. What I am sure that I don't believe in is the God of the bible or the Quran. There is simply no possible way that this God exists and I'm sure everyone here agrees. However I think it's kind of silly to give religions a patent on the word God. If we strip away some of the characteristics of the God of the bible there may well be something "out there".

 

What I am sure about is that if this kind of God exists, this being/life force/whatever you wan't to call it, would never be mad at us because of petty things that religious people call "sins". There would be no book with words that can explain or describe it. And I also think that it doesn't talk to people, because talking and words is something that has emerged in humans and hasn't always existed. I always found that intersting. When God is creating the world in genesis he is saying things like "let there be light". As if an almighty spirit has vocal chords just like us. That is the problem with the God of religions, they make him out to be simply a huge human with magical powers. If there exists a real God, it's something totally different than us.

[Antlerman]

I voted unsure. What I am sure that I don't believe in is the God of the bible or the Quran. There is simply no possible way that this God exists and I'm sure everyone here agrees. However I think it's kind of silly to give religions a patent on the word God. If we strip away some of the characteristics of the God of the bible there may well be something "out there".

 

What I am sure about is that if this kind of God exists, this being/life force/whatever you wan't to call it, would never be mad at us because of petty things that religious people call "sins". There would be no book with words that can explain or describe it. And I also think that it doesn't talk to people, because talking and words is something that has emerged in humans and hasn't always existed. I always found that intersting. When God is creating the world in genesis he is saying things like "let there be light". As if an almighty spirit has vocal chords just like us. That is the problem with the God of religions, they make him out to be simply a huge human with magical powers. If there exists a real God, it's something totally different than us.

These are good thoughts. To offer a certain perspective to this that may be helpful, what really can be said is you have no need to understand God that way, as the anthropomorphic sky-parent keeping record of all your deed like Santa with his long lists about you. Some people do, and that's hard to keep in perspective when we don't. We tried the system that spoke of God as such, and tried to wrap our reasoning minds around it and could not.

 

The reason is, to use an analogy, that having training wheels on our bicycles get in the way of our ability to ride under the knowledge of our own balance. We can't ride freely with those baby wheels stuck on the sides of our rear tire. Now we are free to reimagine God in the way we are free to ride our bikes unencumbered by training wheels. Blaze a trail up the hills, across the grass, and wherever that freedom pulls you.

[pawn]

Non-duality.

 

Atheist, yet open to all ideas. God is just a word we use to describe the absolute, which is indescribable.

[Antlerman]

Non-duality.

 

Atheist, yet open to all ideas. God is just a word we use to describe the absolute, which is indescribable.

Yes to the above. I'll add one thought too, is that God is also a face we put upon the absolute in order to move towards it from our separate egoic self. All the rest, all religious expressions of God are simply different facets of that same thing; relating to the Infinite from our separate minds.