Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[pErvinalia]

I'd ask Seth: What standard for evidence does he have? If I and 40 people claim we saw a flying saucer, would he consider it a personal problem of his that he doesn't accept these claims on face value? If not, why not? What's the difference?

[Hermit]

And I believe religion has been the subject of critical philosophical scrutiny [,,,] by many of the world's greatest philosophers and minds.

This is so true. For instance, here is a summary of what religion is by one of the greatest minds ever:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Nobody could have said it any better, don't you think?

[laklak]

I can probably sum it up a bit more succinctly. It's all a load of bollocks. Doesn't matter how many people claim it's true, doesn't matter how many "eyewitness" accounts there are, it's all a load of bollocks.

I don't despise theists, I just have as little truck with them as possible because their line of bollocksy bullshit makes my piles hurt. I'm retired, no one is signing my paycheck, I don't have to engage with them in my daily life so I don't. What they believe has little effect on me, I'm not forced to kow-tow to their delusions. If I am ever forced to do so I'll move somewhere else. I don't go out of my way to offend them, I simply do not engage with them on any but the most superficial level. They can God Bless and Go With Christ as much as they want, as long as they get the fucking lawn mowed to my satisfaction and make proper change at the grocery till.

There are a few people I know, family and old friends, who have swallowed the Kool-Aid, when at all possible I avoid them. I don't go eat at their homes because I'm not going to bow my head and mumble bullshit over the food, I don't go to their weddings or funerals, I don't attend their kid's christenings or confirmations or participate in any of their other silly bullshit rituals. My brother-in-law's sister is a real fanatic, a "Charismatic Catholic", when she comes to visit I show up, say hello and leave. At my age I've spent far, far, far too much time being respectful and understanding and all that happy shit, listening to their pious blatherings and dealing with their moronic beliefs. I don't want to hear any more of it, I don't want to be around them and I don't give a fuck if that offends them. If they want to keep it to themselves we'll get along fine, talk about fishing or TV shows or whatever, but the minute they start on the God shite I just excuse myself and leave.

[rachelbean]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And therein lies the point.

Except that we don't all do this. I'd even say not the majority. You're doing what you're accusing others of and then saying we "all" deserve it because we all do the thing you're doing. But we don't. I don't. I've done exactly the opposite many times. It's not funny how it works, it's either you being ignorant or trolling

[Seth]

Many scholars no longer take the Bible literally. I've a book, The Bible Unearthed, which goes into a lot of detail about the history of the Bible. It is reckoned the OT is 7th century BC propaganda under King Josiah who wanted to lead his people under one God. Many of the stories are folk legend, not unlike stories in the Celtic tradition, Fionn McCuhaill and the like. People like Moses don't seem to have ever existed.

This book is written by Jewish archeaologists and has glowing endorsments from bishops, priests, theologians and skeptics alike. I'm not sure how theists square the circle, but that was not the scope of the book. It was purely an historical/archeaological piece. Most of the work done on uncovering Biblical history the last couple of centuries was done by theists, not by atheists or skeptics trying to debunk anything. Early on they thought they would find evidence that the Bible stories were true, and it led them to examine the evidence completely wrongly for a long time. After a while, as many pieces weren't fitting with the evidence, they started asking if maybe some of these stories weren't true. It was only after this they could begin to construct a more coherent history.

I highly recommend that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

Couldn't agree more. It's perfectly obvious that the Bible, and most other sacred religious texts, are the product of attempts to govern cultures and societies, and that religion has classically been the most effective way to govern a society because the "big stick" is a deity that is omnipotent and omniscient. Religious control of societies is how secular government evolved in the first place. What's wrong with that, pray tell?

If we admit that governance is necessary at all, to one degree or another, it turns out that religion is a very good method of gaining compliance with social mores and behavioral patterns that help keep societies stable and functioning. This utility, along with many other utilities of religion are why it persists in human behavior, and by and large it's more beneficial to society overall than it is harmful, and has been that way for millennia.

[Seth]

And I believe religion has been the subject of critical philosophical scrutiny [,,,] by many of the world's greatest philosophers and minds.

This is so true. For instance, here is a summary of what religion is by one of the greatest minds ever:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Nobody could have said it any better, don't you think?

Depends on whether you agree with his premise that rationalism (ie: the absence of religious fantasy) is a desirable state for the individual or for society.

I happen to disagree with Marx in this.

Turns out most actual people soundly disagree with Marx as well, and understand that, particularly under Marxism, there is no "living flower" to be plucked, there are only bitter weeds and death, and Marx's "sun" is not the individual, it is "man" as a component of the collective, or as he puts it, " Man is the world of man – state, society."

Thus Marx cares nothing for the trials, tribulations or concerns of the individual as he treads his way through a weary, dreary life of hoeing potatoes in some Soviet gulag, his concern is only for "state, society" and his desire is to take away from the individual the solace of the opium of religion so that the individual will focus his attention not on himself and his tribulations, but on the collective, the state, and will make the state his god and the collective his congregation and will worship at the feet of Marx and Marxists.

So yes, almost any non-Marxist could have said it much better, as I just have.

[Seth]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And therein lies the point.

Except that we don't all do this. I'd even say not the majority. You're doing what you're accusing others of and then saying we "all" deserve it because we all do the thing you're doing. But we don't. I don't. I've done exactly the opposite many times. It's not funny how it works, it's either you being ignorant or trolling

Golly, do you find it uncomfortable to be lumped in inappropriately with those who have nothing to contribute but insults and harassment?

Imagine that. Poor you. I'm afraid I don't recall seeing you taking a principled and enduring stand against the lies and libels against theists and non-theists who don't toe the Atheist party line that are posted here regularly. I think I would have noticed another defender of religious rights and dignity who did so with any sort of conviction or regularity. "All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good (wo)men to do nothing." Somebody said that once, and he was right.

[rainbow]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And therein lies the point.

Except that we don't all do this. I'd even say not the majority. You're doing what you're accusing others of and then saying we "all" deserve it because we all do the thing you're doing. But we don't. I don't. I've done exactly the opposite many times. It's not funny how it works, it's either you being ignorant or trolling

I agree.

For a start I'm not an Atheist.

I simply lack any belief that there are No Gods.
Therefore I voted Cheese. Am I wrong?

[rachelbean]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And therein lies the point.

Except that we don't all do this. I'd even say not the majority. You're doing what you're accusing others of and then saying we "all" deserve it because we all do the thing you're doing. But we don't. I don't. I've done exactly the opposite many times. It's not funny how it works, it's either you being ignorant or trolling

Golly, do you find it uncomfortable to be lumped in inappropriately with those who have nothing to contribute but insults and harassment?

Imagine that. Poor you. I'm afraid I don't recall seeing you taking a principled and enduring stand against the lies and libels against theists and non-theists who don't toe the Atheist party line that are posted here regularly. I think I would have noticed another defender of religious rights and dignity who did so with any sort of conviction or regularity. "All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good (wo)men to do nothing." Somebody said that once, and he was right.

I don't usually engage in threads you're part of except for an occasional passing comment. "Golly", you're a broken record about what kind of people are here, regardless of facts. You don't have to make an enemy out of every person you type at. Why is your default mode to be nasty and assume the worst of everyone?

People online and off who actually know me, know who I am, so your approval isn't really needed. I just see you repeating the same judgemental crap about people here over and over and (probably mistakenly) decided to speak up. Since you'll predictably use this as another chance to be condescending and hostile, I'll let you have the last word and leave it at that.

[laklak]

I think religion is a necessary evil for the teeming masses of lumpen idiots. Some of us are a bit more evolved and do not need to be reminded once a week to refrain from murder, rape and pillage. The problem comes in when the religion itself is the driving force behind the murder, rape and pillage.

[Svartalf]

What is worse, religion or sports?

[laklak]

To some sport IS a religion.

[Animavore]

I'm not even sure if "is there a God?" is even an interesting question for me any more. I feel like I've gone beyond non-belief. Not least because I'm being asked do I believe something which hasn't been sufficiently defined, which I mentioned earlier in the thread I can't even answer affirmatively or negatively, or even coherently.
I'm far more interested in questions like, "What came before the Big Bang?", or "What is consciousness?" If the answer to the former does lead to a god, and the answer to the latter leads to some immaterial stuff, then one would hope that by then we are in a position to define such things by what they are rather than what powers they posses (omniscience) or by what they aren't (material). At least then I can properly answer whether such things exist while dispensing of the need for belief altogether.

Not that I hold out much hope for either of those answers in light of what I know of cosmology and neurology. One can always be surprised though.

That said, I've finally settled on an answer to the poll and it is dairy product related.

[Svartalf]

To some sport IS a religion.

I know, and I deem sport as bad an opiate of the masses as religion...

[laklak]

I don't get sports, never have. How people can get so worked up over dudes kicking/throwing/hitting a ball and running about a field is beyond me. I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through a sporting "event". I think the last time I watched any sports was the 2nd semi-final of the 1999 cricket world cup when the Aussies beat South Africa because Donald and Klusener forgot the rules of the game. Morons.