Discussion i acknowledge god, but i do not believe in him. what are your thoughts?

[VIBRITANNIA]

hey. i'm not very familiar with this site yet so if there's anything wrong with this thread please let me know.

anyways, regarding the title - i've always considered myself an atheist. i believed that if god does exist, then why does he let humanity suffer? suffering only breeds more suffering, so i don't buy the whole "god's plan" thing.

but as of late, i've been questioning if god does exist. i'm not the smartest when it comes to science, so maybe it's just ignorance when i say i don't buy into the big bang hypothesis. not to mention that earth just seems so perfectly crafted to me, it just doesn't seem like a miracle to me. animals that all have specific and delicate relationships with one another, the fact that earth is the right distance from the sun... the more i think about it, the more i believe god exists.

however, that doesn't mean i believe in god, per se. i acknowledge the possibility that a higher being exists, but i don't have faith in them. this is because, as said before, why does god let us suffer when it brings nothing? and additionally, why make humans inherently sinful? if you have the power to create any being you wish, and to craft a utopia, why, instead, would you favor a dystopia?

the first answer that comes to mind is entertainment. a utopia, while blissful to live in, would be boring, wouldn't it? but at the same time, i favor boredom over the suffering humanity is subjected to in this world.

maybe it's just me not understanding our oh so wise and heavenly creator. maybe this is just me trying to give meaning to something meaningless. feel free to ramble in the comments.

 

[Susannah]

Welcome. I like to think that all questions can be asked here on ss. We all believe in something or nothing. But answering yes, no or meh to such a huge question just doesn't tell anything about us. God and religion, the meaning of life...love, hate. I think people are meant to support each other, not some higher power/God. I do believe in other crazy stuff though.
LoveS

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I certainly don't buy that god is love or is wise. If there is a god, seems like a sociopathic brat that pulls the wings off flies. Why would I kiss ass to something like that and work hard to be a good person so that I could pass its judgment? In Genesis, god the creator said he didn't want humans to gain knowledge of good and evil because then they would become like "us," and didn't want other gods worshipped over him, so he wasn't the only god, just one of many, and a greedy narcissistic one, even worse than Zeus the rapist who cheated on his wife and played games like a handsome, overindulged boy. The god of the Bible wanted love and adoration but didn't return it. In the parable of Job, he let Satan fuck up Job over and over again. He said, "Go for it, you'll see that he'll still keep worshipping me." What a Supreme Dick. If there is a god, that being is not higher in morals or goodness. Mysterious ways my ass, it's a free pass for abhorrent behavior.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

i don't buy into the big bang hypothesis. not to mention that earth just seems so perfectly crafted to me, it just doesn't seem like a miracle to me. animals that all have specific and delicate relationships with one another, the fact that earth is the right distance from the sun..

I think the big bang theory is widely held to be the best explanation of the origin of the universe with our current state of knowledge. There is a lot of empirical data to support it, like the cosmic microwave background and the red shift of galaxies (the further away galaxies are the faster they accelerate away from each other, which is an observable phenomenon). The measurements of the expansion of the universe are so precise that its age can be dated to about 3 decimal points (about 13.787 billion years old).
I'm also unsure why you don't buy into the big bang, since it actually is compatible with the idea of the creator god of the bible and other monotheistic religions.

I'm not sure that the fact that earth has the right conditions for life, that it's the right distance from the sun etc, is good evidence that it was created/designed by the will of a god. If you factor in the size of the universe, the number of galaxies in it (about 2 trillion), solar system (maybe 100 billion), planets (700 quintillion (that's a 25 zero number)), then the probability that at least one of the planets in it has the right conditions for life is very high.

And the delicate interrelation of all the animals and plants in the ecosystem is to be expected given the common biochemical origins of life on the earth, the 4 billion years of evolution and natural selection. Things appear to be designed because the long process of natural selection and genetic mutation that allowed organisms and species to adapt to their environments is not directly observed. So the end result looks like it was the product of intentional design, but this is just a sort of optical deception.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all bore, I just didn't agree about your take on the science stuff.
I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said.

 

[BipolarGuy]

I think the big bang theory is widely held to be the best explanation of the origin of the universe with our current state of knowledge. There is a lot of empirical data to support it, like the cosmic microwave background and the red shift of galaxies (the further away galaxies are the faster they accelerate away from each other, which is an observable phenomenon). The measurements of the expansion of the universe are so precise that its age can be dated to about 3 decimal points (about 13.787 billion years old).
I'm also unsure why you don't buy into the big bang, since it actually is compatible with the idea of the creator god of the bible and other monotheistic religions.

I'm not sure that the fact that earth has the right conditions for life, that it's the right distance from the sun etc, is good evidence that it was created/designed by the will of a god. If you factor in the size of the universe, the number of galaxies in it (about 2 trillion), solar system (maybe 100 billion), planets (700 quintillion (that's a 25 zero number)), then the probability that at least one of the planets in it has the right conditions for life is very high.

And the delicate interrelation of all the animals and plants in the ecosystem is to be expected given the common biochemical origins of life on the earth, the 4 billion years of evolution and natural selection. Things appear to be designed because the long process of natural selection and genetic mutation that allowed organisms and species to adapt to their environments is not directly observed. So the end result looks like it was the product of intentional design, but this is just a sort of optical deception.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all bore, I just didn't agree about your take on the science stuff.
I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said.

As a mathematician myself (no, not just somebody with a vague interest in science) I am able to tell you with some authority that the big bang theory has major issues.

Firstly, the expansion of the universe is not "evidence" for the big bang theory.
Rather, the theory was constructed to explain it.

Secondly, our knowledge of quantum mechanics predicts that very many particles, called magnetic monopoles, should have resulted from the big bang, and should be abundant in the universe.
Not a single magnetic monopole has ever been detected.

The big bang theory is certainly not a given.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

I was raised Catholic, and despite my grievances with several doctrines related to equality and justice (e.g., abortion, gay marriage), I still consider myself Catholic and a believer.

I do believe in God, but strangely, not in any human idealization of God. I believe that there is a divine presence that permeates our lives. I don't think it forges our destiny, or desires to be worshipped, or punishes evildoers. I do think it is a presence that allows us peace and clarity, and perhaps even encourages us to love and create.

Reading the description of God but @GoodPersonEffed was very difficult for me. On one hand, I could understand how someone could feel such animosity to a god that allows good people to suffer, sets plagues and floods on his creation, and demands loyalty and sacrifice. On the other hand, I think it puts too much stock in scriptural perceptions of God. Unlike many Christians, I absolutely do not believe in the Bible as the infallible, divinely inspired word of God. I believe it contains many spiritual truths, but is the work of human hands. Humans are flawed, as are all our creations.

As far as the scriptures go, I don't put much faith in the human perception of God. Most of the acts of God in the Old Testament are fiction or legend, meant to teach some lesson regarding what they believed God to be. This is by no means a controversial statement. Any theologian will tell you this. (I know because I used to teach in a graduate theological school. I taught sacred music, but still interacted with theology professors on a daily basis.) Taking the Scriptures as literal documents leads to a perception of God that can often be at odds with our spiritual understanding. Even some of the spiritual lessons reflect the historical attitudes of the communities at the time when it was written.

My personal experience of God is much more subtle. I sense the divine when performing or listening to truly beautiful music. I have a deeply scientific understanding of music, and yet it cannot account for the beauty and spiritual satisfaction I feel when it engages me. I sense the divine in magnificent architecture, as I admire how human ingenuity, creativity, and labor can amount to such great things. I sense the divine in the inspiration behind such great works, and indeed in great works of all artistic genres. I sense the divine in nature. For me, not so much in walking through the woods, though others do. The feeling I get from observing the grandeur of natural phenomena triggers a sense of appreciation for divine power. And, I suspect, most of all, I sense the divine in the compassion of others.

In these moments of experiencing what I call "the divine," I feel most at peace. I gain clarity. I feel love — for myself, for others, for creation. I'm inspired to be the best version of myself and to spread that feeling to others.

So, to me, God is love. I acknowledge God, and I believe in God. I don't believe God is something human thoughts can ever fully understand, which is why I think it's so hard to believe. But I think the more we simplify God to make the divine palatable to human thoughts, the easier it is to dismiss.

I think the way that we teach about God is antiquated and irrelevant to contemporary society. I think we lose sense of God if we keep thinking of God in such limiting ways. Humans arrived at the "existence of God" to explain what they could not understand in our world. As science began to provide explanations, God began to disappear. I think that's the result of a short-sighted vision of God — believing that God could even be described in human terms.

</2 cents>

 

[DeadButDreaming]

I agree with GoodPersonEffed that if a god exists he is at the the very least callous but more likely malicious and sadistic.

I fail to see how "god" is credible anymore. Nothing about religion makes sense. For instance, God sent Jesus to be crucified for our sins. Why should a man who didn't commit those sins be punished for them? If you did something horrible and I punished your sister instead of you you would rightfully say I was a unhinged.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Nothing about religion makes sense. For instance, God sent Jesus to be crucified for our sins. Why should a man who didn't commit those sins be punished for them? If you did something horrible and I punished your sister instead of you you would rightfully say I was a unhinged.

It's not really as simple as that. God wasn't "punishing" Jesus. It's all grounded in Jewish theology and the traditions of Passover - Jesus as the sacrificial lamb whose blood is shed to save all of humanity. Again, I'm not saying this has much bearing with our modern understanding of the world, but I get wary of oversimplifying things to the point where they're easy to dismiss.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I have no beliefs, just very distinct suspicions.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

It's not really as simple as that. God wasn't "punishing" Jesus. It's all grounded in Jewish theology and the traditions of Passover - Jesus as the sacrificial lamb whose blood is shed to save all of humanity. Again, I'm not saying this has much bearing with our modern understanding of the world, but I get wary of oversimplifying things to the point where they're easy to dismiss.

The old testament also said crucifixion was the scummiest way to die.

I just think it's mental gymnastics to say that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the OT messiah, includingng his manner of death. Jews didn't and don't accept him as the messiah for those reasons. I'm not saying that you're saying that he did, it's just that I spent decades as a Christian, went to a private Christian school and studied the Bible every day, then was Southern Baptist, then thought I had a calling to the ministry but couldn't deal what that denomination's misogyny so became Methodist, finally figured out a 25 that I just didn't believe and never fully had. In all those years, every pastor said he fulfilled all the prophecies, and a Jewish scholar would laugh at at that.

As far as I recall, Jesus never even claimed to be the sacrifice for humanity, but he did know he was going to get killed which was a logical assumption. It wasn't until after he died that it was claimed he was a sacrificial savior. Please do correct me if I'm in error, because for all the decades I studied, there have been just as many that I haven't and I have forgotten a lot of what I learned, but much of what I learned was doctrine and not what the Bible actually said or didn't say. If I recall correctly, the gospels did not call him a sacrificial savior but that practice started with Acts or the epistles, or if one gospel called him that, the others did not. There's John 3:16 of course, but it doesn't say god gave his son for a sacrifice, only that he gave the world his only son.

Just so much mental gymnastics to make Jesus fit in the role of messiah and savior, I'd forgotten how stressful it feels to me.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Just so much mental gymnastics to make Jesus fit in the role of messiah and savior, I'd forgotten how stressful it feels to me.

I guess I agree. I've never put TOO much stock in it all, but I do enjoy the symbolism. It's almost like a great work of literature.

When you consider that none of the gospels were written during the life of Jesus (the earliest one being composed 40 years after his death) and the existence of the gnostic gospels, it all seems rather silly. Early Christians settled on those four gospels because they fit with the theology and vision of Jesus to which they subscribed. Numerous varying accounts were just left out. Who's to say which is accurate, if any? The Gospel of Judas is a most interesting one!

Then there are the various additions, deletions, and alterations made through repetitive copying by scribes. Verses were actually added to scripture to help formulate a certain vision of Jesus. The end of Mark's gospel was written perhaps centuries later. The passage in John where Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was written several centuries later.

All this to say that the Bible, in its current or any previous form, can in no way be the divinely-inspired work of God. It is the work of human hands, and as with all things human, is fallible and laden with faults.

 

[faraway_beach]

The world seems perfectly attuned to life because the life that evolved was attuned to that world.

I'm not religious. My country (U.S.) is primarily Abrahamic religions. I've started to read the bible, and had some disagreements right off. First, I would not have said that eating the fruit of knowledge was the problem. It was proof of concept. Humans were created to have free will and Eve demonstrated it. Experiment successful! I would say the problem comes afterward, when the humans try to pass the blame: the man blamed the woman, and the woman blamed the serpent. I would have said the right answer is, "Yeah, we ate it, and we have some questions."

I even have problems with Abraham himself. He is praised for being god-fearing and obeying god's will, but I would have said the right answer is "I don't worship a god that asks for human sacrifice."

I would say that the role of humans, in a world with a god (if that is our world), is to ask questions and disagree if necessary. Think about it, you're a deity surrounded by nothing but angels singing your praises for five billion years. Sure it's gratifying at first, but wouldn't you get bored and want to hear a different opinion?

 

[SnowWhite]

i believed that if god does exist, then why does he let humanity suffer? suffering only breeds more suffering, so i don't buy the whole "god's plan" thing.

...

however, that doesn't mean i believe in god, per se. i acknowledge the possibility that a higher being exists, but i don't have faith in them. this is because, as said before, why does god let us suffer when it brings nothing? and additionally, why make humans inherently sinful? if you have the power to create any being you wish, and to craft a utopia, why, instead, would you favor a dystopia?

Simple. God cannot be All-loving and All-powerful. I understand this belief is very much a fringe belief in the church but allow me to explain.

The Bible, Torah & Qur'an are not the word of god, but a book written by humans trying to understand god. The bible in particular has been mistranslated, manipulated, changed and had parts cut out over the years. An all-loving and all-powerful god would not punish mankind for homosexuality after creating it, they would make it impossible for humans to be homosexual. (Btw that passage of Leviticus was either originally a condemnation of older men sleeping with younger boys or a condemnation of incestuous relationships depending on how you translate it).

The simple explanation is that the Earth, and universe by extension, was an accident of God. I choose to believe that accident as the cause of the big bang. With such a vast universe being born, it is incredibly self-centered to believe that God is powerful enough to monitor all the universe and set rules for humanity, when mathematically there must be other life in the universe.

There are even some people who believe that God's death is what caused the big bang, however I'm unsure about that theory.

I probably sound crazy but that's my interpretation of the world.

 

[almost_dead]

hey. i'm not very familiar with this site yet so if there's anything wrong with this thread please let me know.

anyways, regarding the title - i've always considered myself an atheist. i believed that if god does exist, then why does he let humanity suffer? suffering only breeds more suffering, so i don't buy the whole "god's plan" thing.

but as of late, i've been questioning if god does exist. i'm not the smartest when it comes to science, so maybe it's just ignorance when i say i don't buy into the big bang hypothesis. not to mention that earth just seems so perfectly crafted to me, it just doesn't seem like a miracle to me. animals that all have specific and delicate relationships with one another, the fact that earth is the right distance from the sun... the more i think about it, the more i believe god exists.

however, that doesn't mean i believe in god, per se. i acknowledge the possibility that a higher being exists, but i don't have faith in them. this is because, as said before, why does god let us suffer when it brings nothing? and additionally, why make humans inherently sinful? if you have the power to create any being you wish, and to craft a utopia, why, instead, would you favor a dystopia?

the first answer that comes to mind is entertainment. a utopia, while blissful to live in, would be boring, wouldn't it? but at the same time, i favor boredom over the suffering humanity is subjected to in this world.

maybe it's just me not understanding our oh so wise and heavenly creator. maybe this is just me trying to give meaning to something meaningless. feel free to ramble in the comments.

bruh , God basically means someone who is not selfish . But we all (humans , plants , animals etc) are selfish LOL . Then who cares about God anyways ? Fuck him.

 

[Sprite_Geist]

bruh , God basically means someone who is not selfish . But we all (humans , plants , animals etc) are selfish LOL . Then who cares about God anyways ? Fuck him.

God is incredibly selfish considering he created a universe with suffering in it.

 

[airboy_a380]

My dad is a church pastor, and I became an atheist, if there was a God there would be no more suffering in the world. My dads religious keeps mentioning for years the end is near and the second coming of Christ is about to happen. I've been listening to this for 40 years. Where is he then? God is an imaginary friends for adults who think they is some heaven waiting for them.

 

[Final Escape]

God is not taught to us much because if it was more people would understand how morality works and the controllers don't want that. They want us to be immoral and no understanding of moral right and wrong. Moral education is kept out of most people's education because we are less controllable then.