|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 8:37PM
#1
|
|
|
I've been a ponderin' lately and its struck me that:
Its not so much that I dis-believe in 'God', its just that I don't see he has a role in anything.
1. He doesn't appear to intervene in day to day happenings. Zillions of innocent children are starving and he doesn't do anything to remedy it. What did these innocent children do to deserve starvation and early death? I could list a bunch of other horrible things going on too, but you get the point.
2. Man and every other lifeform seems able to have evolved without outside intervention (warts and all)
3. Atheists and Christians can do wonderful things, and terrible things, and whether they believe in God or not doesn't seem to affect on average what they do.
So I submit, its not really whether God exists or not, but rather, that his existence, and believing in him seems to be irrelevant.
Perhaps a new catagory should be created. Not "Atheist" but "Irrelevantist".
I'm not saying that something called 'God' may or may exist, rather, I am saying, "Sure maybe he exists, but so what".
I just don't see Him having any relevant attributes, other than existing.
I hope I'm explaining this half-decently.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 8:51PM
#2
|
|
|
I just don't see Him having any relevant attributes, other than existing.
One question: So how would he even be relevant existing?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 9:16PM
#3
|
|
|
I've been a ponderin' lately and its struck me that:
Its not so much that I dis-believe in 'God', its just that I don't see he has a role in anything.
1. He doesn't appear to intervene in day to day happenings. Zillions of innocent children are starving and he doesn't do anything to remedy it. What did these innocent children do to deserve starvation and early death? I could list a bunch of other horrible things going on too, but you get the point.
2. Man and every other lifeform seems able to have evolved without outside intervention (warts and all)
3. Atheists and Christians can do wonderful things, and terrible things, and whether they believe in God or not doesn't seem to affect on average what they do.
So I submit, its not really whether God exists or not, but rather, that his existence, and believing in him seems to be irrelevant.
Perhaps a new catagory should be created. Not "Atheist" but "Irrelevantist".
I'm not saying that something called 'God' may or may exist, rather, I am saying, "Sure maybe he exists, but so what".
I just don't see Him having any relevant attributes, other than existing.
I hope I'm explaining this half-decently.
Discuss.
Does a god need relevant attributes??? Isnt the belief in a god that doesnt interfere with anything (which seems to be what you mean by relevent) just deism? Wouldnt a diest be what you are calling an "Irrelevantist"?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 10:18PM
#4
|
|
|
Good point skeptic, while he never mentioned creation. Past that, he does seem to be describing Deism.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 10:22PM
#5
|
|
|
Its not so much that I dis-believe in 'God', its just that I don't see he has a role in anything....
Gods no not have to exist for them to have a purpose. Look around and you'll see that the main function of having a god belief is so that others can see you believing. God beliefs, like spirituality, are nothing but a shiny bauble to show off to others. The bigger and shinier your bauble the more they look up to you.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 11:54PM
#6
|
|
|
Good point skeptic, while he never mentioned creation. Past that, he does seem to be describing Deism.
If one were assuming a god exists I think it would also be safe to assume that god created everything so I would feel safe to assume that he is describing deism. Personally if I were to entertain the idea of a god a diestic god is the only one that would come close to making sense to me because like him I see no real evidence of a supernaturals interation with us or anything. But thats just me, and I still find that one a bit hard to swallow.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 11:58PM
#7
|
|
|
Its not so much that I dis-believe in 'God', its just that I don't see he has a role in anything....
Gods no not have to exist for them to have a purpose. Look around and you'll see that the main function of having a god belief is so that others can see you believing. God beliefs, like spirituality, are nothing but a shiny bauble to show off to others. The bigger and shinier your bauble the more they look up to you.
Also now that I think about it more a god belief can also serve as a security blanket in a sense. Sometimes people are terrified that they arent really in control so they may just like this belief because it gives them a sense of hope and safty that a being that can control everything is looking out for them. So in the end bad things that may happen is part of this gods plan.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 12:47AM
#8
|
|
|
Some reasons for believing in particular gods - • Lack of options: being born into a pre-scientific culture where no better explanations of luck, destiny, natural phenomena, enforcible morality and death are available. • Culture: being born into a particular culture in which the reality and role of gods are assumed, and in which belief brings social rewards. (This will include many who are indifferent to religious questions either way.) • Identification: as an expression of gratitude to and identification with rescuers (from drugs, disease, famine, poverty &c) who believe in those gods. • Personality: heightened affinity for mysticism, stories, magic &c, often enough with diminished aptitude for reasoning, analysis and factual complexity. Also, religion as one's preferred form of escapism.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 1:57AM
#9
|
|
|
no different than trying to study the CAUSE of the big bang... what's the point to studying what caused the big bang? or, what's the point in believing in enlightenment? the desire to understand reality. simply because no Divine influence can be perceived does not mean it cannot exist. by this line of reasoning it would mean dark matter could not exist prior to it being perceived. since our perception is STILL to meager to perceive the true nature of dark matter, it doesn't surprise me that our perception would also be too meager to comprehend the Creator who created the universe.
how does that feel to be a lawnmower man? must be a real rush.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 2:04AM
#10
|
|
|
no different than trying to study the CAUSE of the big bang...
what's the point to studying what caused the big bang?
or, what's the point in believing in enlightenment?
the desire to understand reality.
simply because no Divine influence can be perceived does not mean it cannot exist.
by this line of reasoning it would mean dark matter could not exist prior to it being perceived.
since our perception is STILL to meager to perceive the true nature of dark matter, it doesn't surprise me that our perception would also be too meager to comprehend the Creator who created the universe.
Except that nobody created the Universe. Further-we had reason to look for dark matter, stuff called "evidence". Yet.... after all this time, we still have no reason to look for a creator... otherwise science would be doing that. Likewise, we know the big bang happened-so we care about studying it. Again, we do not have a shred of evidence of any god, much less your composite god, happening anywhere, at anytime-so we don't waste time looking. We'd much rather study more important things, like fungus.
|
|
|
