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.

[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.

[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."

[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?

[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.

[Lemur]

Lemur, fair enough. However, gods existance isnt really something you can have a moderate view on, is it? ... [I]t is the people signing on to some religious dogma without a hint of reason that I question.

I would disagree, and propose that you can have a moderate view on the existence of God. Exemplum gratum: I believe in God, but I also believe that God is by definition unknowable, as I said earlier. This makes me more of an Old Testament kinda guy, as per the Book of Job. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." This resonates with me powerfully.

Where my skepticism/moderation rears its ugly head is when I hear/read/see other human being claiming to know the mind and intentions of God. They are claiming a mantle that will not and could not ever fit them. Going back to analogies, it's like a mouse claiming to know the destination, structure and details of a supertanker. Even that analogy is too kind; more like an intestinal bacteria declaring that it knows the outline and structure of a cluster galaxy. Hubris doesn't begin to cover it.

Religion is one way of approaching the unknowable, ineffable, infinite mind that is God. It has its limitations and dangers. Science is another way; it too has limitations and dangers.

I don't mean to dive too deeply into Fitch's Paradox and the omniscience principle, but there are limits to what human beings can know, no matter how advanced our technology and/or culture becomes. We are mortal, imperfect, grasping, greedy, lustful, weak, angry little critters, which is how we were made. And as Popeye would say, "I am what I am and that's all what's I am."

People obsessed with dogma are boring and sometimes dangerous. They're a lot like the crazy dude you know who thinks that the country that controls magnesium will control the universe.

The essential tenets of all major religions are something along these lines:

• Don't be a jerk
• Have lots of babies
• Think before you do something cruel
• Be charitable
• Have empathy
• Spread this religion
• ????
• Profit

Or some combination thereof. To get bogged down in dogma is a sign that you need a hobby.

[Beskar]

Kind of agree.

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

Not really, the morals pre-date Christianity significantly in various pagan and non-Christian religions. Also, Christianity was in favour of concepts such as slavery/slave owning, amongst others and various zealous attitudes which are now unacceptable by the standards of today.

Christianity has to evolve and change itself for the time and place. If it was truly the universal truth, wouldn't it always be the same?

[Lemur]

If it was truly the universal truth, wouldn't it always be the same?

There's probably already a name for that, but I'm too lazy to Google it, so I'm going to dub it the Fundamentalist's Paradox.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Where my skepticism/moderation rears its ugly head is when I hear/read/see other human being claiming to know the mind and intentions of God. They are claiming a mantle that will not and could not ever fit them. Going back to analogies, it's like a mouse claiming to know the destination, structure and details of a supertanker. Even that analogy is too kind; more like an intestinal bacteria declaring that it knows the outline and structure of a cluster galaxy. Hubris doesn't begin to cover it.

Equally, how could you be so certain that God would be so distant from mankind if he did exist? If you do believe in a creator being, you would have to ask why he would choose not to take anything to do with what he created.

People obsessed with dogma are boring and sometimes dangerous. They're a lot like the crazy dude you know who thinks that the country that controls magnesium will control the universe.

...

Or some combination thereof. To get bogged down in dogma is a sign that you need a hobby.

I think that's unfair. If nobody explored these things we would never make progress. Those boring theologians had a big impact on how the world came to be the way it is today. Although I agree theology for the sake of theology is a bit pointless, I much prefer when it is something practical, like with Paul's theological ideas in his Epistles. Almost every time he brings up theology it's in relation to a specific issue, usually in a specific church.

Christianity has to evolve and change itself for the time and place. If it was truly the universal truth, wouldn't it always be the same?

There's probably already a name for that, but I'm too lazy to Google it, so I'm going to dub it the Fundamentalist's Paradox.

Well that's what Protestantism was all about, returning to the purity of worship seen in the New Testament, and losing all the baggage gained over the centuries. I don't see any areas where New Testament beliefs come into conflict with mainstream Protestant beliefs.

Like with the slavery issue (thinking of Philemon here), Paul was more concerned with the spiritual rather than the temporal issue. Contrary to popular conceptions nowadays, Christianity does deal primarily with the spiritual side of things, the main function of the church is not to combat social/political issues like slavery. In the face of such hardships, it simply says to accept the powers that be (Romans 13 etc). The Bible neither promotes nor condemns slavery outright (although the sort of slavery most people think of with the Atlantic slave trade would be condemned, because of the cruelty of it).

[Hosakawa Tito]

If atheism is true, then life is ultimately meaningless. Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Your life is inconsequential.

[PanzerJaeger]

If atheism is true, then life is ultimately meaningless.

Why does there need to be a god to validate what is meaningful?

[Hosakawa Tito]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

Is a life without hope inconsequential ?

That depends on what one defines as consequential. Is living one's life as if it were simply a transition to the afterlife consequential?

[Husar]

Christianity has to evolve and change itself for the time and place. If it was truly the universal truth, wouldn't it always be the same?

That's why the fundies are the only true christians, the ones who try to stick by the words of God and Jesus and don't elect a man in a funny hat to decide what stance they should have on condoms and other modern contraptions of the devil.
Which is also why I think people who say the church should modernize just don't get it, if there is a God you cannot ask him to modernize either since he will just throw you in hell, if the church modernizes to something else than what God's word is because some humans want it, they'd risk that all of their followers get thrown into hell, they become false prophets, not that they or many of them aren't already prophets but asking them to modernize is kinda like asking them to become false prophets.

[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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

That depends on what one defines as consequential. Is living one's life as if it were simply a transition to the afterlife consequential?

For some people it is, but there is more than one path to the top o' the mountain; who's to say any are the wrong way. Funny, I used to know a lot more when I was younger than I do today.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hah! Without checking previous votes, I voted 'disagree'. As did, so it turned out, the religious fundamentalist crowd.

All you silly atheists who voted 'A' are wrong and will burn in hell!!

If atheism is true, then life is ultimately meaningless. Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Your life is inconsequential.


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

I think all of this qualifies as the exact opposite to Banquo's (in)famous Camus quote:
\
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus, "Noces"



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

[PanzerJaeger]

For some people it is, but there is more than one path to the top o' the mountain; who's to say any are the wrong way.

Not me. I have a lot of respect for people of faith. I just don't agree that an atheistic world view renders life meaningless.

[Beskar]

The 'meaning of life' is to reproduce in a stable environment so life continues. In otherwords, live your life in peace and harmony, fostering an environment where all, especially your children will grow up safe and secure.

What other values and meanings you want to add onto that, is entirely up to you. But forcing others to live in conflict and dispair, trying to justify it by suggesting they will be rewarded in sugar-candy mountain is simply exploitation and degrading life.

Life is what you make of it, so make good use of it. You only have it once.

[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.

[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

[Shibumi]

I would disagree, and propose that you can have a moderate view on the existence of God. Exemplum gratum: I believe in God, but I also believe that God is by definition unknowable, as I said earlier. This makes me more of an Old Testament kinda guy, as per the Book of Job. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." This resonates with me powerfully.

Where my skepticism/moderation rears its ugly head is when I hear/read/see other human being claiming to know the mind and intentions of God. They are claiming a mantle that will not and could not ever fit them. Going back to analogies, it's like a mouse claiming to know the destination, structure and details of a supertanker. Even that analogy is too kind; more like an intestinal bacteria declaring that it knows the outline and structure of a cluster galaxy. Hubris doesn't begin to cover it.

Religion is one way of approaching the unknowable, ineffable, infinite mind that is God. It has its limitations and dangers. Science is another way; it too has limitations and dangers.

I don't mean to dive too deeply into Fitch's Paradox and the omniscience principle, but there are limits to what human beings can know, no matter how advanced our technology and/or culture becomes. We are mortal, imperfect, grasping, greedy, lustful, weak, angry little critters, which is how we were made. And as Popeye would say, "I am what I am and that's all what's I am."

People obsessed with dogma are boring and sometimes dangerous. They're a lot like the crazy dude you know who thinks that the country that controls magnesium will control the universe.

The essential tenets of all major religions are something along these lines:

• Don't be a jerk
• Have lots of babies
• Think before you do something cruel
• Be charitable
• Have empathy
• Spread this religion
• ????
• Profit

Or some combination thereof. To get bogged down in dogma is a sign that you need a hobby.

Don't be a jerk - This is probably your best point, and religions greatest positive input in society. However, do remember that the "do not be a jerk"-thing did not suddenly start with religion. It is a very human fight, regardless of religious background. Besides, people acting like jerks can also be caused because of religion, it is a two edged sword. However, my main point, is that religion has absolutely no claim, I say it again, no claim on this positive attitude. They did not start it, and they play a very small role in it.

Have lots of babies, yes, to spread the religion. Religions can be seen as a virus on humanity at large, so of course the virus needs to spread. Moot point in the past, but today you cant say this is a positive trait either, the world gets more and more overcrowded as we speak. Our generation is fine, but soon drastic meassures as the ones China is already forced to take will come in effect. What consequences will come from religion at that time? Will religion back away from the religious preaching of "have lots of babies".

A further point here is, it is not just about "have lots of babies", the point is - Have lots of babies raised to follow this religion. Some priests/shamans/whatever refuse to marry two people of different religions. Or agree to do it only if they get promised the child will get raised according to their faith. A small negative impact at large, yes, but then again, have a look at Ireland and see how nasty it can get. If only protestant and catholic children would have gone to the same schools, and would have got a more proper scientific look on the world, the fight would not have got as bad as it did.

Think before you do something cruel, you forgot to add - "unless it is against some heathen". If you are indeed serious with this claim, I must question your knowledge on religions and their impact. I would argue quite the contrary, that religion at large make it easier for people to do cruel things. Religion (and culture) is the two big factors to create an "us and them" thinking, where you deamonize the others, making it fair to treat them however.

Be charitable, an often argued point, but then again, absolutely not a trait started by religion. Again, it is a human trait. So a very moot point.

Have empathy, you again forgot to add - "to people in your group". When it comes to other groups, empathy is not of big importance, is it? Again, the empathy is a two edged sword, making it easy to lose it for other groups.

Spread this religion, with the bible in one hand and the sword in the other? Or what?

????, ????

Profit, yes indeed, priests and similar leaders has profited a lot of people gullibility.



As to your take on god... So we can not understand him. Fair enough, why bother then? And if we can not understand him, then neither can the priests or the pope, or the shamans, or whatever. So why listen to them? That seems to be a rather strong argument against religion, not for it.

[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.