Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is all well trodden stuff.


I think what J and H are getting at, is what's the point in that supposition if you subtract the moral wranglings.


It makes no difference to your life to believe or not to believe does it.

Maybe it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside or something but without an accompanying moral framework or posthumous benefit then really, what's the difference?

-Heinz- Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the wonder is a very valid reason to

> suppose the existence of an all pervasive clever order.


Maybe, if you're the kind of person that wants immediate closure. You can just answer all those questions by simply saying "god did it". Seems like rather simplistic thinking to me, but each to their own.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's difficult to have a serious

> conversation about God if you're defining it

> however you want to define it.


Men have been defining God or Gods in whatever way they wished ever since metaphysics, and one could also argue that among believers of the same faith each and every member of that faith has a slightly or very different understanding of this indeed rather large concept.


I was only trying to reply to the question posted as : "Is there a God" understood as, the belief in the existence of God...Not it motives.

>

> Gods have always been moral arbiters and the

> personification of supernatural or poorly

> understood events.


More accurately Gods have been used by man to justify their moral precepts.

>

> You can't suddenly announce that your definition

> doesn't include morality or human characteristics

> and expect people to understand you.

>

Sorry if you don't...

Jeremy Wrote:

>

> Maybe, if you're the kind of person that wants

> immediate closure. You can just answer all those

> questions by simply saying "god did it". Seems

> like rather simplistic thinking to me, but each to

> their own.


I don't pretend to know any of the answers to "all those questions" (whatever they may be) you are referring to.

This is about the 100th time someone has tried to make the distinction between a belief in god and in religion and about the 100th time I've asked 'what's the point of the former without the latter' and I've yet to have a single answer.


Not a single satisfactory answer, but a single answer.


And once again ignored.


Please....anyone....bueller....

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is about the 100th time someone has tried to

> make the distinction between a belief in god and

> in religion and about the 100th time I've asked

> 'what's the point of the former without the

> latter' and I've yet to have a single answer.

>

> Not a single satisfactory answer, but a single

> answer.

>

> And once again ignored.

>

> Please....anyone....bueller....



dunno but you could make a case that the former is based solely on s personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is a man made construct

"dunno but you could make a case that the former is based solely on s personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is a man made construct"


well obviously they're both man made constructs, i think the difference in your examples is one is a personal viewpoint and the other is esentially someone else's.


And yes I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine.


A number of times people have said that belief in a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of beliefs/'rules'/rituals'.


That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim, but it's really no different to saying 'I believe in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The point is, whilst trying to sound profound, actually basically meaningless.

Are you saying that a belief without the confines and rules of religion has no impact one?s life and is therefore meaningless? Or are you saying religion and a looser set of beliefs are equally meaningless?


El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "dunno but you could make a case that the former

> is based solely on s

> personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is

> a man made construct"

>

> well obviously they're both man made constructs, i

> think the difference in your examples is one is a

> personal viewpoint and the other is esentially

> someone else's.

>

> And yes I get your point, but you seem to be

> missing mine.

>

> A number of times people have said that belief in

> a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't

> necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of

> beliefs/'rules'/rituals'.

>

> That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim,

> but it's really no different to saying 'I believe

> in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The

> point is, whilst trying to sound profound,

> actually basically meaningless.

The first, although I might rephrase that to say "a belief without the confines and rules by which we define 'religion'", is effectively meaningless.


That's not to say it has no effect, that warm fuzzy feeling may be beneficial in the same way that, let's say ooooh, homeopathy can be beneficial.

I'm just saying that if that belief doesn't define for you a mroal structure or ultimate destiny (good or bad) then it's not worth arguing the toss over.


Buddha came to pretty much that conclusion, he finished up saying that religion was hokum and you're better of trying to achieve enlightenment for it's own end, that being inner peace.

Ah I see. Most of the people I know that believe in God without religion do feel it affects the way they live their lives and their perspective on the world. Some believe inherit spirituality is the basis of human altruism and empathy. Any other world view would just be too nihilistic for them.

I hate marmite but that?s just my belief

I have to admit, if there is a creator I'm more inclined to think it'll be more lovecraftian than a fount of altruism.

Something beyond comprehension that the merest hint of which would drive man to madness and despair.

A force for whom we are mere atoms, no more or less significant than ants or sand on a beach or the convection currents in the methane seas of a distant moon or a star crashing into a black hole.


The universe is either chaotic and indifferent or has a very black sense of humour, but I see no evidence of a source of love and goodness. But that's me, all nihilistic and hopeless, it's the marmite that does it.

Humility maybe one answer to your question, though personally I think humility before your fellow man might be preferable to humility before an absentee creator.


I think you need to embrace the warm fuzzy feeling though, whether it's a simple belief or something like the optimism bias surely we all need a bit of irrationality in our lives just to get through the day.

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Having enjoyed a day with Sayce HolmesLewis, I understand what you’re saying.  I appreciate your courage responding on here. 
    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...