Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience

[Strike For The South]

and therefore one should not waste time trying to find God.

[Lemur]

Hmm. I'm more of the opinion that given the vastness of the universe, and the strangeness of the universe, whatever a human being can conceive of as "god" must, by definition, not be god. In other words, if you can picture it, you're wrong. Which does not exclude a maker, a creator, or an animating force. It just means that we are literally bacteria trying to describe a five-act opera. We are necessarily unable to conceive of god in any way that might be accurate.

But that's just my take. Religion is still useful, as a tool for teaching morality and community-building. And like any tool it can be abused. All things in moderation.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

God going to strike me down if I argeed or not, so I went the safe route and send GAH!

[Beskar]

A slight edit:

"Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience; so why bother with one?"

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess it depends on what sort of God he turned out to be if he did exist.

[Vladimir]

A slight edit:

"Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience; so why bother with one?"

Both are wrong. They are wrong because they are against the quest for for knowledge, philosophy, and higher reasoning in general. Just one-liner's expressing one man's opinion.

Perhaps a better line is: Whether or not God exists should not stop one's quest to find Him.

This borrows a lot from Lemur's philosophy; imperfect, finite beings trying to understand a perfect, infinite being. God and the devil are easy to find: They are in the details.

[ajaxfetish]

A slight edit:

"Whether or not God exists is inconsequential to the human experience; so why bother with one?"

Because a human experience is worth having for its own sake

Ajax

[Hosakawa Tito]

A man who goes to bed a theist, a Platonist about mathematics, a modal realist, an idealist, and a Kuhnian, and wakes up an agnostic, a nominalist, a fictionalist, a representative realist and a falsificationist, lives in exactly the same way as he did the day before. Except in the life of his mind.

[Shibumi]

Hmm. I'm more of the opinion that given the vastness of the universe, and the strangeness of the universe, whatever a human being can conceive of as "god" must, by definition, not be god. In other words, if you can picture it, you're wrong. Which does not exclude a maker, a creator, or an animating force. It just means that we are literally bacteria trying to describe a five-act opera. We are necessarily unable to conceive of god in any way that might be accurate.

But that's just my take. Religion is still useful, as a tool for teaching morality and community-building. And like any tool it can be abused. All things in moderation.

Teaching morality? Morality has changed a lot, and mainly for the better (goes up and down). However, the progress has often been in spite of religion, not because of. A religious morality just makes it stagnant, leading to my main complain about christianity, feels wrong to base my morals on what was popular some 2000 years ago, where slavery was common and women had no rights.

The christian church has done a very good PR-campaign trying to make people believe that human values are somehow christian - thou shalt not kill and so on. Nothing christian about it, we honour our mother and father regardless of some old book. And as often mentioned, quite often in spite of some old book.

[The Celtic Viking]

The question depends entirely on what definition you have of "god".

Religion is still useful, as a tool for teaching morality and community-building.

Is this why all the three main monotheism praise and celebrate the same thing: Abraham's willingness to murder his own son because he heard voices in his head?

[Beskar]

Religion is still useful, as a tool for teaching morality and community-building.

You could also put a round peg in a square hole, but there are better alternatives without the proverbial santa claus.

[tibilicus]

You could also put a round peg in a square hole, but there are better alternatives without the proverbial santa claus.

Kind of agree.

But then again, do we not owe our western moral code to Christianity?

[Lemur]

Is this why all the three main monotheism praise and celebrate the same thing: Abraham's willingness to murder his own son because he heard voices in his head?

If you're going to use the Old Testament to bash, this isn't even the best example (Issac was spared, remember?). Personally, I'm fond of Lot's drunk hookup with his daughters for blowing the minds of people who don't know their Bible.

Everyone's quoting and arguing with my "religion is still useful" line, omitting the following clause: "All things in moderation."

[Shibumi]

Lemur, fair enough. However, gods existance isnt really something you can have a moderate view on, is it?

Also, I must say I am just utterly tired and bored of people looking to immoral old books for guidance. I can have some respect for the nutters hearing voices and stuff, it is the people signing on to some religious dogma without a hint of reason that I question.

[The Celtic Viking]

If you're going to use the Old Testament to bash, this isn't even the best example (Issac was spared, remember?).

I am well aware I didn't even pick the worst one (which is kind of making my point for me), but it's something all the three major monotheisms praise as examplary behaviour. Muslims even hold a feast in celebration of the very act at the end of the pilgrimage. There are two hidden arguments you seem to be making, too:

1) It is easy to find horrible things in the "Old Testament", but the "New Testament" is an improvement.

No, it's not. The New Testament is literally infinitely worse, as it invents the notion of eternal torture (by this supposedly all-loving god).

2) The fact that Abraham was stopped in the very last second makes this a good, or at the very least acceptable thing.

Again, no. Are you a father? How would you react if you thought God, the God, whom you were intent on to follow, ordered you to murder your son? What emotional stress do you think you'd go through if you actually get to the point where you were actually intending to go through with it? What if God then, just before you struck the knife into your son's chest said, "oh, on second thought, you don't need to do this: I was only testin' ya".

How would you feel then? How would you feel to know that all the emotional scars, all the psychological damage that has been done to you and your son was just a joke?

Secondly, there's another passage in which god has a man sacrifice his daughter and doesn't stop it.

Thirdly... all this is irrelevant. What (believing) jews, christians and muslims alike are celebrating and praising is his willingness to murder his own son. Is this moral teaching to you?

Everyone's quoting and arguing with my "religion is still useful" line, omitting the following clause: "All things in moderation."

I agree. The Aztecs might have gone a little overboard when they sacrificed thousands of people every year. Really, it would've been enough with 365 to keep the universe going...

On a more serious note, I can take another example: the Jesus story. Even the most moderate christian must believe in at least that, right?

Well, the moral of the story here, is that you can put your sins upon someone else, have him killed and thus be washed free. It is scapegoating, and it abolishes the whole idea of personal responsibility, upon which morality completely depends.

How could you possibly say this is spreading morality?

Religion is very useful though, that I can agree with. It's what has allowed the Catholic church to get away with raping children for so long, after all. It's also a very good way to get money out of people, and to get respect that you don't deserve, and to get votes that you don't deserve, and to get people to do your bidding, and for...

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm. I'm more of the opinion that given the vastness of the universe, and the strangeness of the universe, whatever a human being can conceive of as "god" must, by definition, not be god. In other words, if you can picture it, you're wrong. Which does not exclude a maker, a creator, or an animating force. It just means that we are literally bacteria trying to describe a five-act opera. We are necessarily unable to conceive of god in any way that might be accurate.

I always felt that if there is a God/Gods not only can we not conceive of it correctly but it can't fathom us either, take for example a naturalist watching an ant colony neither of them is ever going to understand the motivations of the other.

My take is if there is a God it doesn't care about you and it certainly does not love us nor plan to bring us to any heaven.

[naut]

Hmm. I'm more of the opinion that given the vastness of the universe, and the strangeness of the universe, whatever a human being can conceive of as "god" must, by definition, not be god. In other words, if you can picture it, you're wrong. Which does not exclude a maker, a creator, or an animating force. It just means that we are literally bacteria trying to describe a five-act opera. We are necessarily unable to conceive of god in any way that might be accurate.

I'd have to agree. There are so many gods on this planet alone, imagine how many gods there are across the universe if there is a minimum of one other sentient life force. Gods we can't even conceive of, gods not created under the influence of our human nature.

When you look at the size of the universe you can decide there may be a creator, but you will never know what it is, because you simply cannot conceive it. And it doesn't care for you or this planet, otherwise it wouldn't have made such a massive universe. When you look at the flawed nature of so many things in the universe you start to realise that it doesn't care if you live or die, or any being lives or dies, otherwise it would have designed you with a lot less flaws. What it seems to appreciate is life itself, the tenacity of life and the strength of life, from single cell to multi-cellular organisms.

For many people the belief in God is hope, and hope makes a tremendous psychological difference for them. Is a life without hope inconsequential?

Life isn't meaningless for atheists or agnostics, they create their own reasons and meanings for life and living. Those who believe in a religion either can't think of their own or are unsatisfied with the meanings they create, so borrow someone else's, IMHO. That's not necessarily a bad or a good thing, as religion creates community within the religion, but also excludes those outside of the religion. Some people need that belonging and hope, some people don't.

[Husar]

I'd have to agree. There are so many gods on this planet alone, imagine how many gods there are across the universe if there is a minimum of one other sentient life force. Gods we can't even conceive of, gods not created under the influence of our human nature.

You either misunderstood his post or I did, according to my interpretation Lemur said there probably is a god but we have no idea who or what it/she/he is wants etc., you say there are many gods created by humans so "aliens" must have created just as many different ones. You just apply a typically atheist view to his view but I don't see where Lemur said that we created god, I think he is saying that god may have created us but we don't know/don't get his message if there even is any, not that we made god up, which is what you are implying. With Lemur's view one could say that we all have some sort of connection to god/know she exists/spiritualuity but we all interprete it differently, thus creating different religions, aliens might be worshipping the same god but in different ways, that wouldn't mean she was just made up by us, just that we cannot grasp her in any way.

At any rate, lots of famous, Gauloises-puffing, sexually experimentative French left bank philosophers disagree with you etc etc

What makes these probably unemployed lazy playboys any more right than Hosa, especially considering even you admit they were under heavy tobacco/drug influence?

The 'meaning of life' is to reproduce in a stable environment so life continues.

God would disagree and say the meaning of life is to worship it and spread its glory, we only exist as its status symbol. The latter part is added by myself, the rest is what I've been told at church.
Everything we do should serve to show god's glory, for it is loving us and giving us great things if we believe in it and accept it's son.

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it. Is there any monotheistic religion with a female god?

[naut]

You either misunderstood his post or I did, according to my interpretation Lemur said there probably is a god but we have no idea who or what it/she/he is wants etc., you say there are many gods created by humans so "aliens" must have created just as many different ones. You just apply a typically atheist view to his view but I don't see where Lemur said that we created god, I think he is saying that god may have created us but we don't know/don't get his message if there even is any, not that we made god up, which is what you are implying. With Lemur's view one could say that we all have some sort of connection to god/know she exists/spiritualuity but we all interprete it differently, thus creating different religions, aliens might be worshipping the same god but in different ways, that wouldn't mean she was just made up by us, just that we cannot grasp her in any way.

Lol. I think you misinterpreted my post. I didn't say we "created" god nor that I am an atheist. I'm a Yahwist. I believe in a god, but I don't know anything about him. And I can't, no one can. You can logically deduce certain things, like it may have an affinity towards life due to our existence, but you cannot know its motives. Lemur said we can't conceive of what any god is, wants and does, because we feasibly can't. I agreed with that statement, by saying that other sentient life-forces may also have a god/gods that they worship and the sheer number of these gods is a good way of coming to terms with the fact that we can't ever conceive of the actual details of a god, because every culture/race/species across the universe would apply their own view. That doesn't mean they can't sense or feel a god or a "divine presence".

[al Roumi]

I voted disagree but "Gah!" might be better.

As with religion, it's actually the people who make it, not a supreme being.

I think God's existence is of consequence to human existence, especially if you give a about him/her/it. In terms of day to day impact, I should imagine many faithfull people consider their actions acording to what "he" has "said" he would like/advise them to do.

But I don't really think I feel the tremours of a supreme being's will.

[Beskar]

God would disagree and say the meaning of life is to worship it and spread its glory, we only exist as its status symbol. The latter part is added by myself, the rest is what I've been told at church.
Everything we do should serve to show god's glory, for it is loving us and giving us great things if we believe in it and accept it's son.

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it. Is there any monotheistic religion with a female god?

If you make another post like that, Santa Claus will bring you a piece of coal for Christmas for being a naughty boy.


(That reply is as relevant as suggesting I am incorrect because of an imaginary being says otherwise. )

[naut]

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it. Is there any monotheistic religion with a female god?

Which in itself is a fail. Because, genetically, females have more complete DNA, as the Y chromosome is a shorter less complete genetically degenerated version than the X chromosome, so why would god create man in his image if it is less complete than woman. Surely it should be the other way round.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Unless he were androgyn or suffered from Klinefelter syndrome.

[Lemur]

Then again, god should be male if Adam was created in his image, unless that was a misinterpretation of the one who wrote it.

Actually, if you re-read the first book of Genesis, you'll see that there are two versions of the creation of man. In the first version "male and female created he them." So man and woman are created simultaneously. The more elaborate storytime version where Adam comes first is the second version.

Even that is a cleaned-up hand-me-down. Depending on which ancient sources you want to credit, there are other versions, including (most interestingly to me) one in which God creates no fewer than three female companions for Adam, getting it wrong at least twice. First God lets Adam watch as he makes the mate, but seeing a human body in all its components disgusts Adam so much that he won't touch her. So God destroys her. She never gets a name.

Then the Lord creates an equal to Adam, who bosses him around and insists on being on top during sex. Adam, being a typical man, goes whining to the boss, and the boss kicks her out of the garden. She is named Lilith, and goes on to be the "mother of monsters." She gets referenced later in the standard Bible, with no explanation of where she originated. (Don't forget that the sons of Adam and Eve take wives from other tribes, with no mention of where those tribes came from.)

Lastly God puts Adam asleep and crafts an inferior, more submissive bride from Adam's rib. This is the second version of creation in the standard text, and the only surviving iteration of Adam's wives that is commonly known and accepted by Judeo-Christian-Islamic worshipers.

And if these stories are meant to be taken literally, then I am the Queen of Norway.

[Strike For The South]

Even that is a cleaned-up hand-me-down. Depending on which ancient sources you want to credit, there are other versions, including (most interestingly to me) one in which God creates no fewer than three female companions for Adam, getting it wrong at least twice. First God lets Adam watch as he makes the mate, but seeing a human body in all its components disgusts Adam so much that he won't touch her. So God destroys her. She never gets a name.

.

"Have you ever seen a vagina by itself? Not for me"

[Tellos Athenaios]

I am the Queen of Norway.

Sounds plausible enough. But boy, was Adam ever such a miserable excuse for a human being; I really can't see why Eve ever saw anything in him at all with others to choose from. God fails at QA.

[Husar]

If you make another post like that, Santa Claus will bring you a piece of coal for Christmas for being a naughty boy.


(That reply is as relevant as suggesting I am incorrect because of an imaginary being says otherwise. )

Can you explain why? If my reply is irrelevant because you do not believe in God, then your replies are irrelevant, too, because I do not believe in worldly science or the logic of the devil.

Actually, if you re-read the first book of Genesis, you'll see that there are two versions of the creation of man. In the first version "male and female created he them." So man and woman are created simultaneously. The more elaborate storytime version where Adam comes first is the second version.

Or maybe it starts with a broad introduction and then explains the finer details.

And if these stories are meant to be taken literally, then I am the Queen of Norway.

Are you married to Beskar by any chance?
If it's not in the bible, it is not God's word as God inspired those who wrote these things and those who chose what gets in and what stays out.
Those who made our version of the bible of course, the other versions are inspired by the devil to mislead us.