The God Theory

[Arcturus Descending]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

Within yourself?

[Calrid]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

Within yourself?

No but as someone who once possessed religion, I did finally notice that the feel good factors out weighed the logic of the thing in the long run. I do tend to agree that people use religion as a crutch, so as to spare them from the toils of their life. Some chose drugs some chose legal ones, some chose religion (which can no doubt be a very socially rewarding experience to some), some chose running, or vigorous exercise to cheer themselves up. I'm not aversed to any of them per se, but religion as has often been opined is not better than the alternatives.

"Alcohol is a very necessary article... It makes life bearable to millions of people who could not endure their existence if they were quite sober. It enables Parliament to do things at eleven at night that no sane person would do at eleven in the morning."

George Bernard Shaw.

The same could be said of any crutch though, and even though he was a teetotaller he had a point.

[jam2001]

If I may interject, feeling good about religion or religious insights is not a bad thing or disqualify them from anlaysis. However neither does it prove anything to be real or true. Our senses are our most reflexive kind of reasoning, at least if you are in touch with them. Feel good is subconscious reasoning. It is reflexive and fast and therefor easily susceptible to illusion. However feelings can sometimes be more reliable than our conscious minds because our conscious minds have learned all sorts of prejudices that may be completely untrue. Fellings are just another source of data to consider, and neglecting them can be very unhealthy. In regards to your comments on alcohol I would just like to say that you almost directly quote the book of Sirach in the bible. It states that God created alcohol to give man relief from his daily burden. Funny how that book of the bible didn't get included in any post reformation protestant bibles.

[Aus10man]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

[Anonamoose]

so pretty much x=2 from a geometrical stand point. if x=1+1 which also =2 then x=2

[Calrid]

so pretty much x=2 from a geometrical stand point. if x=1+1 which also =2 then x=2

I wouldn't dwell too much on the OP, no offence but it's not very well conceived.

x both equals the set 1 and {1} and {0}, or 2 {0} a subset of 1 and 1 and {0}. Further sets have 2 and 1 and most importantly 0 as components. Numbers is just a collection of sets on the whole, proof wise, you can prove something with 0 all along the watchtower as long as each time each set is different because of 0. Religion on the other hand is a collection of nothing entirely logical or mathematical, it's proof not that nothing should not exist but that nothing is a damn good way to build an ideology, which means something to someone presumably somewhere because of human nature.

Once you introduce abstraction into the equation, ie yes no, on off though, it is no longer uniquely a solution of pure numbers. It has an application, one which an interpretation can hence be made on. Maths is abysmal at abstractions into the real unless it is uniquely and rigorously defined, maths and philosophy hence are not the same subject, logic or otherwise.

[victorel21]

*This is not a religion, merely a theory on why the belief exists. Feel free to deny/defy it.*

This is a theory I created at a very young age and developed over the years... I use numbers to achieve a "universal picture" in a way I can only describe fluently, and so you can perceive the vision better. Thank you.


X=1+1=2

1 is equivalent to a question.
+ is equivalent to the merging of.
2 is equivalent to the answer.

To explain in detail how I see this equation; Imagine I am having a conversation with a peer. I ask him, "What is the meaning of death?" (Or 1) He casually replies, "It's when a organism has ceased living." I ask him, "Why?" (+1) He will respond with a more meaningful answer. Again I ask "why?" This continues until my peer can no longer answer my question. This ending of answers usually is justified by the knowledge of the mind.

But what happens to the question when it is reduced far beyond the human limits of perception?(=2)

I believe a center point occurs. This point is which all questions degrade to, and all question derive from.(X)

The center point, if replaced with the the universe, becomes God like. A point in which all began, and eventually end. Yet this is something our minds cannot perceive because we cannot deduct this far. Or can we?
Essentially it means that X is always making 1 question another 1, which will continue to achieve 2.

-Krot

´as long as humans remain curious, they shall believe in god´-me

´god=ignorance´-me

[Stoic Guardian]

Your quotes seem contradictory.

[victorel21]

Your quotes seem contradictory.

to be curious you must not know something. Curiosity=ignorance=not knowing=god.

[Stoic Guardian]

I think your logic is flawed.

I can see how Curiosity is a side effect of ignorance and ignorance is not knowing.

But how is not knowing equal to God?

[victorel21]

I think your logic is flawed.

I can see how Curiosity is a side effect of ignorance and ignorance is not knowing.

But how is not knowing equal to God?

The perfect example is this threads theory, ´god´ is the susbtitute to an answer. It is the simplest route to its understanding. God is the ideal answer to everything, the unknown takes the form of god. Its not hard to see really.

[Stoic Guardian]

That doesn't make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn''t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance...

[victorel21]

That doesn't make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn''t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance...

its a phrase not a logical absolute. but first maybe its best if I define god. God in this context means: any form of believe or religion which is not based on personal experience and is subjected to the scientific method of verification.

[victorel21]

That doesn't make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn''t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance...

atheism is a believe so atheist are still ignorant. they believe in not believing.

[Stoic Guardian]

Everyone is ignorant of something.

[Arcturus Descending]

Your quotes seem contradictory.

to be curious you must not know something. Curiosity=ignorance=not knowing=god.

But to be curious, you must also know or at least sense something. Something must whet your appetite for 'more'.

You need to rethink your equation.

[Arcturus Descending]

That doesn't make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn''t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance...

atheism is a believe so atheist are still ignorant. they believe in not believing.

Perhaps the atheist chooses not to 'believe' because sometimes a belief is so far-fetched. It might not be so much an unwillingness to accept the concept of a god, but an unwillingness to go along with the unbelievable beliefs that sometimes swirl and evolve as a result of that concept. The lenses get muddied because reality gets muddied and the possibility of a god fades more and more into the distance as the absurd is seen more and more. But the absurd still must be seen and examined in order to not lose the light of reality. Perhaps the atheist simply does not have the heart for that.

[victorel21]

Your quotes seem contradictory.

to be curious you must not know something. Curiosity=ignorance=not knowing=god.

But to be curious, you must also know or at least sense something. Something must whet your appetite for 'more'.

You need to rethink your equation.

Or maybe you should tell me what ignorance means to you. sensing is not the same as knowing (at least by my definition).

[victorel21]

That doesn't make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn''t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance...

atheism is a believe so atheist are still ignorant. they believe in not believing.

Perhaps the atheist chooses not to 'believe' because sometimes a belief is so far-fetched. It might not be so much an unwillingness to accept the concept of a god, but an unwillingness to go along with the unbelievable beliefs that sometimes swirl and evolve as a result of that concept. The lenses get muddied because reality gets muddied and the possibility of a god fades more and more into the distance as the absurd is seen more and more. But the absurd still must be seen and examined in order to not lose the light of reality. Perhaps the atheist simply does not have the heart for that.

the athiest chooses not to believe because it is more convinient for him to do that, so its his ´heart´ who is deciding, it is simply that his "heart" has another direction.

[Arcturus Descending]

victorel21 wrote:

Or maybe you should tell me what ignorance means to you. sensing is not the same as knowing (at least by my definition).

True, sensing is not the same as knowing. This is why I also used the phrase ‘or at least’. In order to be curious, one must at least ‘sense something’ and there is the knowledge of knowing that it does exist. That is knowing something. For example, a little boy sees a whale for the first time. He is in awe of it, senses its beauty and meaning to him (for me, real curiosity must hold those two characteristics) though he knows nothing of that whale. It is that which causes him to be so curious and want to learn about the whale, which eventually causes him to become a marine biologist.

For me, the real definition of ignorance is not having studied and learned something. There are many people who have a great intelligence but they are ignorant of certain matters because they have not had the opportunity to learn.
The other connotation for ignorance may be in having learned a thing and yet still not knowing it, understanding it or living our lives according to it. But that to me is more in line with stupidity.

[Arcturus Descending]

victorel21 wrote:

the athiest chooses not to believe because it is more convinient for him to do that, so its his ´heart´ who is deciding, it is simply that his "heart" has another direction.

I wasn't putting all atheists into the same category. I was only speaking of a particular kind there.
And there is your kind - the one who chooses not to believe because yes it is more convenient for him, more comfortable for him, not to - just as it is more convenient and comfortable for a particular type of 'believer' who chooses to believe without examining his beliefs and the validity or rationality of them. We all have our particular coccoons.

Perhaps for the atheist I was speaking of before, it has more to do with integrity and living in truth (heart) as he at least subjectively sees it, rather than getting sucked into what he sees as someone else's silly dogma, doctrine and perspective, especially when he sees that that believer's beliefs do not affect the world in any good way.

[victorel21]

victorel21 wrote:

Or maybe you should tell me what ignorance means to you. sensing is not the same as knowing (at least by my definition).

True, sensing is not the same as knowing. This is why I also used the phrase ‘or at least’. In order to be curious, one must at least ‘sense something’ and there is the knowledge of knowing that it does exist. That is knowing something. For example, a little boy sees a whale for the first time. He is in awe of it, senses its beauty and meaning to him (for me, real curiosity must hold those two characteristics) though he knows nothing of that whale. It is that which causes him to be so curious and want to learn about the whale, which eventually causes him to become a marine biologist.

For me, the real definition of ignorance is not having studied and learned something. There are many people who have a great intelligence but they are ignorant of certain matters because they have not had the opportunity to learn.
The other connotation for ignorance may be in having learned a thing and yet still not knowing it, understanding it or living our lives according to it. But that to me is more in line with stupidity.

Well there you go to me ignorance is not knowing something. Which means that the less you know the more curious you will be and as such the greater need for "god" you will have. The bigger the ignorance at a social level you have the greater the need and thus believe in "god". Ignorance =god since they are both directly proportional.

[victorel21]

Perhaps for the atheist I was speaking of before, it has more to do with integrity and living in truth (heart) as he at least subjectively sees it, rather than getting sucked into what he sees as someone else's silly dogma, doctrine and perspective, especially when he sees that that believer's beliefs do not affect the world in any good way.

Therefore more convenient. Who said I am an athiest? I am a philosopher.

[Arcturus Descending]

Perhaps for the atheist I was speaking of before, it has more to do with integrity and living in truth (heart) as he at least subjectively sees it, rather than getting sucked into what he sees as someone else's silly dogma, doctrine and perspective, especially when he sees that that believer's beliefs do not affect the world in any good way.

Therefore more convenient. Who said I am an athiest? I am a philosopher.

For myself, I wouldn't use the term 'convenience' in reference to the atheist I described above. Do you really think that a person's integrity has to do with convenience? Tell me something - when you personally are striving to maintain your integrity and live by a particular code, moral or otherwise, do you sense that as a convenience to yourself?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above - 'who said I am an atheist?......but if you are thinking that I thought you were an atheist, I wasn't. This wasn't about you - simply about atheists.

Unless your remark was meant to be facetious and to imply that as a philosopher, one could never believe in god...which is just plain silly...

[victorel21]

Perhaps for the atheist I was speaking of before, it has more to do with integrity and living in truth (heart) as he at least subjectively sees it, rather than getting sucked into what he sees as someone else's silly dogma, doctrine and perspective, especially when he sees that that believer's beliefs do not affect the world in any good way.

Therefore more convenient. Who said I am an athiest? I am a philosopher.

For myself, I wouldn't use the term 'convenience' in reference to the atheist I described above. Do you really think that a person's integrity has to do with convenience? Tell me something - when you personally are striving to maintain your integrity and live by a particular code, moral or otherwise, do you sense that as a convenience to yourself?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above - 'who said I am an atheist?......but if you are thinking that I thought you were an atheist, I wasn't. This wasn't about you - simply about atheists.

Unless your remark was meant to be facetious and to imply that as a philosopher, one could never believe in god...which is just plain silly...

As there is your kind implied, that my kind do it and thus i was a kind of atheist, but leaving that behind, define integrity before we even start discussing any further.

My definition of convenience- a reward that instigates a pleasure reward on the brain.