God Is A Taught Concept

[Guest Emerson]

I realize now that god has to be taught to children or to anyone who will believe in god I suppose. When I was a little kid, I had this Roman Catholic teacher in public school. Between lessons, she then would try to tell us about god, the devil, and she tried to convince me that satan was real. I don't know, being young and really impressionable at the time, I chose to believe her.

 

Even though we argued whether the devil was really real, I remember that time and I remember how even though I was like 8 years old, I chose to believe. I came to the crossroads, and how stupid...I thought that since she was an adult, she knew the truth and she knew more. Now I know that everyone is human and no one knows more than anyone, except through experience or study of logical things. Although my mom was like "no, there's no devil. Trust me." But then again I thought that since my teacher was a teacher, she knew more.

 

Now I want to unlearn the god concept, I'm not sure if it can be unlearned. When I used to be a xtian, I used to go to family.org, the james dobson website and you know, there was an article there once on how its important to teach children about god before the age of 12/13 otherwise, they will reject anything god related. Ugh. I'm not denying the possibility of a higher power or powers, or whatever. I'm just tired of thinking of god in xtian terms.

 

I don't really know if god can be unlearned. It was easy to drop the ideas of hell, the devil, jesus christ, but not of god. That's taking a lot longer. So my question is, can you unlearn your belief in god? how do you try doing that, what have all your personal experiences with the god concept been after you quit xianity?

[willybilly30]

i started reading about other religions and asking my self questions and began thinking of god diffrently. i talked to people in other religions and joined groups. theirs thousands of conecepts of god and you start to form your own concept. to me the xian god no longer made any sense because why are all these religions here why are all the concepts and ideas here. this proved to me theirs no such thing as revealed religion. if god told everyone what to believe and they knew what god looked like and who god is the world would believe it no questions asked. this forums helped too because i read all these topics on how false the bible is and stuff that proves god couldnt of wrote it. you will be free from the cristian concept of god on this forum just keep reading topics. this forums helped me think about my beliefs alot.

[Light_of_Reason]

I don't know if I have unlearned the god concept, but I sure like to think that I have.

 

The method I found that was most fruitful in removing the god concept from my thinking and views of the world was to immerse myself in the studies of logic and philosophy, especially comparative religion and mythology. When I studied those, I found all manner of holes in the god concept, especially the concept as taught by revealed religion, that there was and still is no conceivable way for it to be repaired. In fact, those studies have led me to the conclusion that the only god concept that can even make remote logical sense is the one of an impersonal being or force that set things in motion and just lets it play itself out, and even that concept has some difficulties.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Bluntly put Emerson, I don't give a damn.

 

"God" doesn't hunt on my turf, does not bother me, nor impedes my life.

 

Now the followers of any given "God" can kiss my fat hairy ass, as they seem right busy trying to tell me what "God" wants and needs for me to do according to their particular versions and beliefs..

 

Quite content to let "God" do its thing keeping the wheels greased and oiled in the Universe, if indeed that is what pans out in my end.

 

Until then, *my* end, I simply have given up caring what "God" and the Joneses think of me.

 

Think of a cosmic case of FOAD...

 

kL

[Guest Emerson]

I love your bluntness and sarcasm nivek.

[LosingMyReligion]

This is a very good question, and something I am really thinking about.

 

Me, I've given up on any one religion and their concept of GOD. I, myself, still believe in Nirvana, reincarnation, and GOD(him, her, it, energy). I guess I am romantic in a way. I just truly believe that some force or grand designer set everything in motion...

I'm not one of those silly people who believe in god when they look in their child's eyes(**puke**). But I do believe that there is something else beyond this realm...

So, in that sense, I still consider myself a spiritual person...

 

But In regards to that maniacal tyrant in the bible...No thank you very much. He made my life a living hell and I imagine living in heaven with bible god would be HELL.

 

But I do wonder how different my life would have been had my parents been athiests or agnostics. I love my mom just the way she is, but I feel sorry for her. She has worshipped the Christian religion since birth. She never had a choice. Her father was a dirt poor pastor...and all she had was the god concept. Thus she passed it onto me.

 

I often wonder what it would have been liked had I not been forced to believe something...But instead taught to have ideas? I've always had ideas but I was afraid of voicing them...To go against god in my household automatically means you are possessed by satan(which is why I am passing as a christian right now).

 

I can't really tell you whether or not you can full break away from the entire concept, as I haven't.

All I can say is to not let it rule your life anymore. Whatever you decide do what it is right for you.

 

This is a very good question, and something I am really thinking about.

 

Me, I've given up on any one religion and their concept of GOD. I, myself, still believe in Nirvana, reincarnation, and GOD(him, her, it, energy). I guess I am romantic in a way. I just truly believe that some force or grand designer set everything in motion...

I'm not one of those silly people who believe in god when they look in their child's eyes(**puke**). But I do believe that there is something else beyond this realm...

So, in that sense, I still consider myself a spiritual person...

 

But In regards to that maniacal tyrant in the bible...No thank you very much. He made my life a living hell and I imagine living in heaven with bible god would be HELL.

 

But I do wonder how different my life would have been had my parents been athiests or agnostics. I love my mom just the way she is, but I feel sorry for her. She has worshipped the Christian religion since birth. She never had a choice. Her father was a dirt poor pastor...and all she had was the god concept. Thus she passed it onto me.

 

I often wonder what it would have been liked had I not been forced to believe something...But instead taught to have ideas? I've always had ideas but I was afraid of voicing them...To go against god in my household automatically means you are possessed by satan(which is why I am passing as a christian right now).

 

I can't really tell you whether or not you can full break away from the entire concept, as I haven't.

All I can say is to not let it rule your life anymore. Whatever you decide do what it is right for you.

[kellyb]

I asked myself "Why do I believe there is a god?".

And the answers led me to atheism.

 

I haven't totally unlearned the concept, I guess. Sometimes I catch myself praying in my mind, kinda.

It just sneaks up on me!

Unlearning that there's someone spying on your thoughts 24/7 is hard!

 

Logically, though, I'm agnostic towards the deist god (evolutionary theory has a few holes that still leaves some room for the "god of the gaps") but I'm pretty sure there is no god.

[Vigile]

I don't really know if god can be unlearned. It was easy to drop the ideas of hell, the devil, jesus christ, but not of god. That's taking a lot longer. So my question is, can you unlearn your belief in god? how do you try doing that, what have all your personal experiences with the god concept been after you quit xianity?

 

I don't know that it's necessary to "unlearn" this concept but I guess that pretty much describes what I've done. If you want to believe in something that doesn't do you any harm then go for it. I didn't try to lose the concept, it just happened as I realized that the reasons I had for ever believing it just fell away as evidence was applied.

 

First try to define what exactly is "god." If you try to do it on a serious level I can just about guarantee that you will have a great deal of trouble. Where is he/she/it? Why is it easier to believe in an intelligent life form as first cause than it is to believe in just energy and matter, which we can measure and which we know doesn't disappear, but only change form?

 

If god was first cause, what caused him? You see, you are just moving the question back a step and then claiming an unexplainable something as the first cause. Does this make sense to do? In essence doing so is just claiming ignorance and placing the name god on it rather than calling a spade a spade.

 

Most who believe in god point to unexplained phenomena claimed by god believers. Examine the phenomena and you will find much better natural explanations. For instance karma: Karma is claimed because people believe that what goes around comes around is a fact of life. I put it to you that this is not so and cannot be proven with any degree of statistical significance. First, we tend to remember positive evidence and reject negatives. This is just human nature. When someone gets their comeuppance we remember this and we talk about it and reinforce the idea. When someone gets away with their bad deeds we don't generally register this in our tally book.

 

Take psychic phenomena as another example. Psychics are easily debunked and every legitimate test ever performed has shown that their guesses are no better than random probability would estimate.

 

There may be something that we entertain as spiritual, but we don't even really know what a spiritual world is and we have zero valid evidence for it. We have no way to measure another unknown dimension so why do we assume one exists? The fact that I use the word "dimension" is just part of the "taught" idea you refer to. What is spiritual? We only understand this concept when it is viewed through the paradigm of religion and even then it really makes very little sense when examined more closely. Moreover, every religion has all but failed to provide a serious argument to build their case on and indeed every one of their arguments has failed miserably when measurable logic and testing is applied so why do we give them any credibility at all?

 

Again, I would offer that you first try and define for yourself in a real way what exactly is god and what exactly is spiritual. This should be a good place to start if you are interested.

[HadouKen24]

First try to define what exactly is "god." If you try to do it on a serious level I can just about guarantee that you will have a great deal of trouble. Where is he/she/it? Why is it easier to believe in an intelligent life form as first cause than it is to believe in just energy and matter, which we can measure and which we know doesn't disappear, but only change form?

 

First Cause and Prime Substance work well for me as defining characteristics. (Though I find that they well may be the same characteristic.) This is, of course, understanding the word "substance" as it originally meant--that which stands under.

 

No need to toss in ideas of intelligence and personhood. They don't really make sense to apply to the sort of thing God must be.

 

If god was first cause, what caused him?

 

Um... if God was the first cause, then asking "what caused him" is like asking "how many fingers did you have before your parents met." If God is the first cause, then God himself can have no cause; if God had a cause, then God would not be the first cause. So your question can be logically exchanged with "if God has no cause, then what caused him?" Which is obviously nonsensical.

 

Most who believe in god point to unexplained phenomena claimed by god believers. Examine the phenomena and you will find much better natural explanations. For instance karma: Karma is claimed because people believe that what goes around comes around is a fact of life. I put it to you that this is not so and cannot be proven with any degree of statistical significance. First, we tend to remember positive evidence and reject negatives. This is just human nature. When someone gets their comeuppance we remember this and we talk about it and reinforce the idea. When someone gets away with their bad deeds we don't generally register this in our tally book.

 

Karma is not an attempt to explain any kind of phenomenon. It is an idea based on a certain kind of metaphysics which you apparently deny.

 

You're not going to debunk karma the way you're going about it. You're hardly even addressing it.

 

Take psychic phenomena as another example. Psychics are easily debunked and every legitimate test ever performed has shown that their guesses are no better than random probability would estimate.

 

What does this have to do with the idea of God? It would be foolish to point to the existence of so-called psychic phenomena as evidence of God. No reasonable person would do it.

 

The actual existence of psychic phenomena is... a whole other can of worms. I'd merely like to say that I've run some tests of my own--being the skeptical sort, uninclined to trust the experimental methodologies of an institution biased before Newton against such things--and found some fairly convincing evidence that... at least some of it seems legit.

 

There may be something that we entertain as spiritual, but we don't even really know what a spiritual world is and we have zero valid evidence for it. We have no way to measure another unknown dimension so why do we assume one exists? The fact that I use the word "dimension" is just part of the "taught" idea you refer to. What is spiritual? We only understand this concept when it is viewed through the paradigm of religion and even then it really makes very little sense when examined more closely. Moreover, every religion has all but failed to provide a serious argument to build their case on and indeed every one of their arguments has failed miserably when measurable logic and testing is applied so why do we give them any credibility at all?

 

Indeed. We don't understand what the word "spiritual" really means.

 

Though I find that the same problem shows up when you try to examine the word "physical." It's... not clearly defined. Ever.

[Vigile]

Ken, it is quite obvious that your grasp of philosophy is much stronger than my own so don't kick me in the nuts too hard on my responses here

 

First Cause and Prime Substance work well for me as defining characteristics. (Though I find that they well may be the same characteristic.) This is, of course, understanding the word "substance" as it originally meant--that which stands under.

 

No need to toss in ideas of intelligence and personhood. They don't really make sense to apply to the sort of thing God must be.

 

I'm a little lost here. If we don't define god with qualities of intelligence then are you saying you can define god as measurable energy and matter? If so, why not call it energy and matter? Not arguing here, just trying to get a better grasp of what you are saying. I might learn something.

 

So your question can be logically exchanged with "if God has no cause, then what caused him?" Which is obviously nonsensical.

 

Ok then, how about if I were to ask "if god were the cause of the universe's first cause, what caused him/it?" Don't those who imply a god imply that something ordered caused the order that we now see? If order requires a cause from something ordered then what ordered the orderer?

 

Karma is not an attempt to explain any kind of phenomenon. It is an idea based on a certain kind of metaphysics which you apparently deny.

 

You're not going to debunk karma the way you're going about it. You're hardly even addressing it.

 

Yes I deny the concept of "what goes around comes around. If this is not a definition of karma then it means I'm misinformed.

 

What does this have to do with the idea of God? It would be foolish to point to the existence of so-called psychic phenomena as evidence of God. No reasonable person would do it.

 

Probably nothing, but a lot of unreasonable people do assume that psychic phenomena is evidence of a god or gods.

 

The actual existence of psychic phenomena is... a whole other can of worms. I'd merely like to say that I've run some tests of my own--being the skeptical sort, uninclined to trust the experimental methodologies of an institution biased before Newton against such things--and found some fairly convincing evidence that... at least some of it seems legit.

 

Not much I can say here. I don't see it as my duty or that it is within my capability of defending the institution of science.

[Guest Emerson]

I don't believe in Karma because I just don't. I don't see any evidence for it. How do you know that just because bad things happen to you that it results in something that you did before? Who ordains this? Some great source, no please spare me from that. Ugh.

 

Besides if I give the bird or do something wrong then of course I expect other people to retaliate, its only human. Its called cause and effect. Not Karma. People don't really get punished for their "sins" or their actions, there are lots of people who do bad things and they die happy feeling good about themselves. A lot of people out there are just evil, end of story.

[HadouKen24]

I'm a little lost here. If we don't define god with qualities of intelligence then are you saying you can define god as measurable energy and matter? If so, why not call it energy and matter? Not arguing here, just trying to get a better grasp of what you are saying. I might learn something.

 

Hmm. I highly doubt that God could be understood in terms of energy and matter. God would rather be the ground of being of energy and matter, if that makes sense. Physical stuff is what it is, because God is what God is. God can only be spoken of in terms of abstractions like this, because we mere mortals lack the capacity for experiencing in concrete terms anything like God.

 

Ok then, how about if I were to ask "if god were the cause of the universe's first cause, what caused him/it?" Don't those who imply a god imply that something ordered caused the order that we now see? If order requires a cause from something ordered then what ordered the orderer?

 

I've never been a big fan of the argument from design. It just doesn't work very well. I don't think you really can say that order in the world implies an orderer.

 

I think it clears up a lot of misunderstandings (and, unfortunately, causes quite a few more) to point out that to be the cause of the universe requries that you be the cause of time and space. If you're the cause of time and space, then you must necessarily not be constrained by time and space. And if that's true, it seems ludicrous to say that there could be anything "before" God, because "before" has no meaning outside of time and space.

 

Yes I deny the concept of "what goes around comes around. If this is not a definition of karma then it means I'm misinformed.

 

Eh, that's pretty much what the definition is. My point is that you're rejecting the idea without making it clear that you're also rejecting the metaphysical assumptions that underlie it. You haven't given any justification for that rejection.

 

Not that I really think you need to. Indian metaphysics is a strange beast indeed. I would put the burden on the one arguing for it, rather than the one arguing against.

 

Probably nothing, but a lot of unreasonable people do assume that psychic phenomena is evidence of a god or gods.

 

Fair enough. I try to avoid getting into arguments with that kind of person, myself. Never seems to get anywhere.

 

Not much I can say here. I don't see it as my duty or that it is within my capability of defending the institution of science.

 

Fair enough.

[Guest Emerson]

well I think my belief in a god is disintegrating. Even if there is a supreme being or higher being, what good does that do me? Its not as if we can communicate with it, and it can't communicate back. As a xtian it just wasn't good enough for me to pray and look at the bible as the "word of god" and I always wanted something more, although I'm not sure what this more was. Then my idealism with xtianity and jesus christ kind of went down the toilet.

 

Even though I believed that jesus christ was the son of god and I accepted his gift of salvation, I still thought that I was going to hell and went to "altar calls" time and time again. I think people at church must have thought I was crazy or something to go time and time again. I think what did it for me was the constant guilt and fear of hell and damnation and never feeling good enough for this god. I was just sick of it.

 

Anything that I want its because I go out and do it. I wanted a job so I went out and got one. I wanted to go back to college and so here I am again. I don't know if I can ever stop believing theism or god or supreme being. Even so I still don't see what good believing in a being does for me. Its not as if I ever get anything out of them.