God doesn't exist: Post from an Atheist

Wow! Great post Bob!

But i’m off at another tangent. . .

Came across the following saying in “Deliverance from Error” Author : Abu Hamid al-Ghazali – assume its taken from the Qur’an?

Why is it that if one does, (when rising in the morning,) have only one anxiety, i.e., to please God, one is thereby preserved from all other anxieties - certainly in this world, (not sure about the ‘next’ though?)

Even if you’re an atheist and don’t believe in god I challenge you to test out this saying, i.e., I’m asking you to test it by putting it into practise in your life. . .

What if you then find it to be true, how will you explain it? Will you still deny god? Or will you revise your understanding of the term?

All I’m asking is that you test out whether being anxious to please god preserves you somehow from all your other usual anxieties. Simple!

I want someone to give me an explanation of why this saying is true. And if you don’t accept it is true then I invite you to test it out yourself!

Do any of you, especially Atheists, have the leisure to try it out?

ala Pascal! :sunglasses:

Bob,

Very cool post. Your perspective on religion is extremely insightful and very interesting. I felt a lot of heart in that post.

Nevertheless, I was disapointed to find that you did not provide an argument for God.

I felt that most of your post was dealt with proving the pragmatism of religion, mainly Christianity.

On one side, I’m really glad you wrote the post you wrote. I am a young person with much to learn and you gave me a clear perspective of what Christianity should be. How you explained Jesus as an archtype really put me in perspective. The pragmatism of Christianity is something that at times I overlook. It’s posts like that that make me glad I participate on these threads.

As much as I understand how pragmatic Christianity is, though, I find little relevance to that idea and of the existence of God. First of all, you don’t have to believe in God to be spiritual. Secondly, just because someone can be spiritual it doesn’t mean God exists.

I believe that the pragmatism of Christianity holds no relavence to the discussion of whether or not God exists. My argument is this: God does not exist because there is no argument that resonably proves his existence.

I felt than in your post you were hinting at an argument. That because the archtype of an “Eternal One” exists and has existed in our minds there must be a God. I only speculate on that argument. The human mind is so complex. We have only started to move past the tip of this massive iceberg. Just because we don’t understand archtypes doesn’t mean that we should attribute it to the “God of Gaps”.

You wrote:

Why? Why have faith? Why force the mind into believing myth? Why should I believe? What reason is there to believe? Is there reason to believe?

But just as important, do you believe that a belief in a deity is a requisite for an ethical archtype? Why can’t we follow an ethical archtype without talking to fairies and unicorns?

What, as in Pascal’s wager?

It isn’t a case of forcing onesself to believe myth, but understanding that myth transports timeless and constant truths in a way that has been acceptable over thousands of years. It is modern man that has his problems with mythology - by comparison a brief moment in history.

It is precisely this problem which leads to the many misunderstandings that we have in the modern age. Whereas it was crude physical power that made the lives of people in history unbearable, it is the advance of rationality as the one and only measure of truth that gave us the twentieth century - the bloodiest century in history (even before the thirty years war) - and which presented us with the fundamentalism that we have taken into the twentyfirst century.

Our culture is loosing rapidly it’s heritage by simply disregarding everything before the modern age as ‘primitive’. This ignorance even has the cheek to hide behind reason as an excuse to slander the values that have built up our culture. It won’t take as long to destroy it.

Shalom
Bob

By the way,

We have theists who believe. . .
Atheists who disbelieve. . .
Agnostics who can’t decide. . .
Now what do you call someone who simultaneously believes and disbelieves?

Does anybody know what you call one who accomodates all opinions?

Will no one defend this God? Can we just say that the belief in God is completely unreasonable?

First of all, it is forcing onesself to believing in myth. That’s what faith is. Faith is letting go of reason that interferes with myth.

I understand your position in saying that there is much to learn from the past and myth but I don’t think that we need to believe in crazy super kings to learn from them. Someone said “Literature is the greatest religion”. I’m all for reading and learning from myth but when did you have to believe in God to learn ethics and be spiritual?

Bloodiest? Explain.

We are not loosing our heritage. We’re just starting to be rational.

Are you one of those people who believe that the atheist have no morals? Tell me why we have to believe in God to be ethical.

And will someone please defend the existence of their God.

Wow. Look at the poll. The atheists have caught up! :stuck_out_tongue:

hombre,

I’d like to address the viability or ‘proof’ of God. There isn’t any direct way of knowing - at least in the realms of reason or science, which are the dominant methodologies for ‘knowing’ in the modern age.

I am going to go at this backwards, but hopefully you’ll see where it’s going.

Consider: Reason, and our ability to use that faculty, has been with us since dirt. Man has been ‘reasoning’ since he discovered the concept “I am” If reason has the ability to establish the perfect order, and any definition of the word rational assume’s this possibility, then why are we where we are? Human existence should have been close to perfect thousands of years ago if reason was all we say it is. Some how, reason fail’s the essential test.

Science is a powerful methodology for explaining the universe, and yet no scientist will ever claim infallability. That something is 'known ’ to .99999999999 ad nausea isn’t “proof” of anything. It’s just likely. Think about quantum theory. At best, it’s about probabilities. What do you mean probable? I want proof! …and yet we forget and assume that we ‘know’ something.

Science and rational thought leave us with “pragmatic” conditional knowing, but neither contains absolute proof of anything.

Take a few moments and consider the possibility of the finite (you) attempting to “know” the infinite (God, or creator, or whatever). Any suggestion that we could know that which is creator would make us AS creator, which is laughable at best, and pathetic arrogance at worst.

Still, look at the staggering complexity of the world around you. It’s impossible not to feel humble in the face of it. That I have no proof become’s irrelevant. There is SOMETHING that is much larger, greater than I or we can know. It is a something that is past mind. It is a sense of, a feeling of, an intuitive understanding of a connectedness to… whatever it is.

We can deny this feeling, this understanding. We can bury it in our arrogant power of reasoning and our scientific knowing. It is whistling in the graveyard. Reason and science fail us just as miserably as the worst of religious dogma.

This is why I consider myself agnostic. I cannot know and I refuse to accept the silliness of religion without spirituality, or the puffy assuredness of science. Does God or creator exist? It is not even a proper question. That “I am” is accepted, and everything I “know” is a construct of a finite mind, but that does not mean that a creator doesn’t exist.

JT

Bob, thank you for your insight and perspective.

and…

That would be a politician. :smiley:

I am an agnostic. I believe that God exists but the attributes of God are unknown. What is God, that is a mystery. Many religions may have part of the answer, but nobody has the full answer. So it will remain.

Personally, I think of God as the Totality of Awareness. An awareness that contains all levels of awareness. Awareness without limits.

But, as Monty Python said, (on a completely different matter) “It’s only a model.”

Loss of life in the 20th Century:
Philippines Insurgency (1899-1902): 220 000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): 500 000
Amazonia (1900-12): 250 000
Portuguese Colonies (1900-25): 325 000
Russo-Japanese War (1904-05): 130 000
Maji-Maji Revolt, German East Africa (1905-07): 175 000
Libya (1911-31): 125 000
Mexican Revolution (1910-20): 1 000 000
Balkan Wars (1912-13): 140 000
First World War (1914-18 ): 15 000 000
Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922): 250 000
Armenian Massacres (1915-23): 1 500 000
Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9 000 000
China, Warlord Era (1917-28 ): 800 000
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924-53): 20 000 000
China, Nationalist Era (1928-37): 3 100 000
Spanish Civil War (1936-39) and Franco Regime (1939-75): 365 000 + 100 000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935-41): 200 000
Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000
Greek Civil War (1943-49): 158 000
Yugoslavia, Tito’s Regime (1944-80): 200 000
First Indochina War (1945-54): 400 000
Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe (1945-47): 2 100 000
Colombia (1946-58 ): 200 000
Chinese Civil War (1945-49): 2 500 000
India (1947): 500 000
Romania (1948-89): 150 000
Burma/ Myanmar (1948 et seq.): 130 000
People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000
Tibet (1950 et seq.): 1 200 000
Korean War (1950-53): 2 800 000
Algeria (1954-62): 675 000
Sudan (1955-72): 500 000
Rwanda and Burundi (1959-95): 1 200 000
Second Indochina War (1960-75): 3 500 000
Guatemala (1960-1996): 200 000
Ethiopia (1962-92): 1 400 000
Indonesia (1965-66): 500 000
Nigeria (1966-70): 1 000 000
Bangladesh (1971): 1 250 000
Uganda, Idi Amin’s regime (1972-79): 300 000
Vietnam, post-war Communist regime (1975 et seq.): 430 000
Angola (1975 et seq.): 550 000
East Timor, Conquest by Indonesia (1975-99): 200 000
Lebanon (1975-90): 150 000
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975-1978 ): 1 650 000
Mozambique (1975-1993): 1 000 000
Cambodian Civil War (1978-91): 225 000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Uganda (1979-86): 300 000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): 300 000
Afghanistan (1979-2001): 1 800 000
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88 ): 1 000 000
Sudan (1983 et seq.): 1 900 000
Kinshasa Congo (1998 et seq.): 3 300 000
Liberia (1989-97): 150 000
Iraq (1990-) International Embargo 500 000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95): 175 000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): 400 000

a typical recent year of murders in America 21 597

Shalom, please!!!
Bob

Then I choose men/humans. You’re right, it is simple.

“According to Epictetus the worship of the gods is only possible for he who has the correct view about goods and evils, i.e., the one who knows that happiness lies solely in what is inside the person and is independent of all external strokes of fate. Mere lawfulness, the external worship of god, counts for so little to him that he declares it to be absolutely worthless and contradictory without the right inner frame of mind. The one who is not philosophically educated, who seeks his happiness in what is external, must logically hate god, and it is absurd if he builds temples and erects statues for the gods; only the philosopher can observe the kathekon to the gods. Just as it is with the duties of piety, the kathekon to parents, siblings, and so on can only be truly fulfilled when all selfish ambition has been overcome; otherwise selfish interest will always defeat the sense of duty and will turn the (supposed) love into hatred.”

Adolf Friedrich Bonhoffer - The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus
Trans. William O. Stephens

I believe I have posted something similar to this before:

Characteristics of Self Actualizing People
Maslow, on the basis of a study of persons (living and dead) selected as being self-actualizing persons on the basis of a general definition, described the self-actualizing person as follows, as compared to ordinary or average people (Maslow, 1956):
1.More efficient perception of reality and more comfortable relations with it.
This characteristic includes the detection of the phoney and dishonest person and the accurate perception of what exists rather than a distortion of perception by one’s needs. Self-actualizing people are more aware of their environment, both human and nonhuman. They are not afraid of the unknown and can tolerate the doubt, uncertainty, and tentativeness accompanying the perception of the new and unfamiliar. This is clearly the characteristic described by Combs and Snygg and Rogers as awareness of perceptions or openness to experience.

2.Acceptance of self, others, and nature.
Self-actualizing persons are not ashamed or guilty about their human nature, with its shortcoming, imperfections, frailties, and weaknesses. Nor are they critical of these aspects of other people. They respect and esteem themselves and others. Moreover, they are honest, open, genuine, without pose or facade. They are not, however, self-satisfied but are concerned about discrepancies between what is and what might be or should be in themselves, others, and society. Again, these characteristics are those which Kelly, Rogers, and Combs and Snygg include in their descriptions.

3.Spontaneity.
Self-actualizing persons are not hampered by convention, but they do not flout it. They are not conformists, but neither are they anti-conformist for the sake of being so. They are not externally motivated or even goal-directed- rather their motivation is the internal one of growth and development, the actualization of themselves and their potentialities. Rogers and Kelly both speak of growth, development and maturation, change and fluidity.

4.Problem-centering.
Self-actualizing persons are not ego-centered but focus on problems outside themselves. They are mission-oriented, often on the basis of a sense of responsibility, duty, or obligation rather than personal choice. This characteristic would appear to be related to the security and lack of defensiveness leading to compassionateness emphasized by Combs and Snygg.

5.The quality of detachment; the need for privacy.
The self-actualizing person enjoys solitude and privacy. It is possible for him to remain unruffled and undisturbed by what upsets others. He may even appear to be asocial. This is a characteristic that does not appear in other descriptions. It is perhaps related to a sense of security and self-sufficiency.

6.Autonomy, independence of culture and environment.
Self-actualizing persons, though dependent on others for the satisfaction of the basic needs of love, safety, respect and belongingness, “are not dependent for their main satisfactions on the real world, or other people or culture or means-to-ends, or in general, on extrinsic satisfactions. Rather they are dependent for their own development and continued growth upon their own potentialities and latent resources.” Combs and Snygg and Rogers include independence in their descriptions, and Rogers also speaks of an internal locus of control.

7.Continued freshness of appreciation.
Self-actualizing persons repeatedly, though not continuously, experience awe, pleasure, and wonder in their everyday world.

8.The mystic experience, the oceanic feeling.
In varying degrees and with varying frequencies, self-actualizing persons have experiences of ecstasy, awe, and wonder with feelings of limitless horizons opening up, followed by the conviction that the experience was important and had a carry-over into everyday life. This and the preceding characteristic appear to be related and to add something not in other descriptions, except perhaps as it may be included in the existential living of Rogers.

9.Gemeinschaftsgefuhl.
Self-actualizing persons have a deep feeling of empathy, sympathy, or compassion for human beings in general. This feeling is, in a sense, unconditional in that it exists along with the recognition of the existence in others of negative qualities that provoke occasional anger, impatience, and disgust. Although empathy is not specifically listed by others (Combs and Snygg include compassion), it would seem to be implicit in other descriptions including acceptance and respect.

10.Interpersonal relations.
Self-actualizing people deep interpersonal relations with others. They are selective, however, and their circle of friends may be small, usually consisting of other self-actualizing persons, but the capacity is there. They attract others to them as admirers or disciples. This characteristic, again, is at least implicit in the formulations of others.

11.The democratic character structure.
The self-actualizing person does not discriminate on the basis of class, education, race, or color. He is humble in his recognition of what he knows in comparison with what could be known, and he is ready and willing to learn from anyone. He respects everyone as potential contributors to his knowledge, merely because they are human beings.

12.Means and ends.
Self-actualizing persons are highly ethical. They clearly distinguish between means and ends and subordinate means to ends.

13.Philosophical, unhostile sense of humor.
Although the self-actualizing persons studied by Maslow had a sense of humor, it was not of the ordinary type. Their sense of humor was the spontaneous, thoughtful type, intrinsic to the situation. Their humor did not involve hostility, superiority, or sarcasm. Many have noted that a sense of humor characterizes people who could be described as self-actualizing persons, though it is not mentioned by those cited here.

14.Creativeness.
All of Maslow’s subjects were judged to be creative, each in his own way. The creativity involved here is not special-talent creativeness. It is a creativeness potentially inherent in everyone but usually suffocated by acculturation. It is a fresh, naive, direct way of looking at things. Creativeness is a characteristic most would agree to as characterizing self-actualizing persons.
(From Patterson, C. H. The Therapeutic Relationship. Monterey, CA. 1985)

Bob that was great! I could almost adopt that as a manifesto! Are some of those psychologists more recent than Maslow? I’m afraid that my psychology textbooks are rather old. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between self-actualizing people and myth. I feel certain that there is. Pure reason has ostracized us from this once sacred land of myth. I’ve always said that both reason and passion are needed. The addition of a mythological framework which is not incontrovertible dogma, nor a culturally forced ideology, nor a selfish stance adds substance which allows the inner man to find his own needs. Your post tied in well with Phrygianslave the wise’s earlier comments. True spirituality comes from within and is not ‘mere lawfulness’.

Tentative said:

Which says something about organized religion…

Phrygianslave the wise:
I was saying that your earlier argument for Christianity (i.e. Try it, you’ll like it) had Pascal for one of it’s advancers.

Bob, what is with this weak attempt to prove that religionists are better off than atheists. You start off by filling half a page with the loss of life in the 20th Century claiming that the deaths are caused by some atheist or rational movement. The post hoc fallacy at it’s best. Laughable, man.

What ever happened to the discussion of the existence of God?! God doesn’t exist. Without God there can be no Christianity. Whether or not religion should exist is another discussion.

Hi Hombre,
you seem stunned, which explains why you are clearly avoiding the question you placed yourself. My statement had nothing to do with ‘religionists’ or ‘atheists’, but rather I wrote that ‘it is the advance of rationality as the one and only measure of truth that gave us the twentieth century - the bloodiest century in history’ which you asked me to explain.

The ‘half a page with the loss of life in the 20th Century’ is just a simple fact of life. The modern age reached a climax in the 20th Century, when people were assuming that we would advance dramatically. All that advanced was the development of weaponry and technology, which, in the hands of pre-civilised humankind had the horrible effect that I listed. It was the advance of rationality which fooled us into believing that we could cope with the new technology - but we are today using up all of our resources, priming the world for the next conflict and promoting politics that betray traditional values, instead of developing technology to save our natural resources, using it to reduce potential conflicts and enable human beings to shape the future for our children.

It is no surprise to hear that ‘to rationalise’ is the term that employers use to lay off workers and cause long term unemployment. It may seem to bring a company into accord with reason or make such behaviour to seem reasonable, but obviously it doesn’t serve the common good. Rationality can therefore be damaging to the common good - which the twentieth century has proven over and over again. How many of the deaths were caused in the interest of Globalisation?

Shalom
Bob

Marshall

Thanks Marshall!

I didn’t know that. (I should have known it though - after all I did once read Pascal’s, ‘Pensees,’ - and the book is lying around the house somewhere or other!)

Bob, how does your unjustified argument have anything to do with the existence of God? Are you avoiding the topic?

I believe that God exists, and I’m willing to discuss it with you. What is it you want to know, exactly?