Is it okay to believe in God?

[fifty5]

Off at a tangent...

Not quite 'on topic', but, in my mind, closely associated...

One of my household gave to Oxfam via their seemingly dedicated "Buy a goat", "Buy a flock of chickens", "Buy a wheelbarrow", etc. scheme.

I'd heard an item on the radio that effectively exposed this scheme (and other similar charitable giving schemes) as a scam: when you read the small print, it turns out that one's donation isn't actually tied to any specific item at all.

I told her that - and a quick search for the small print confirmed what I'd heard.

The lass wasn't actually heart broken, but I destroyed her faith in Oxfam as a completely honest charity - they were manipulating donors by subtly misrepresenting how donations would be spent.

The conversation went on to whether presenting children with the Santa Claus myth was 'wrong' in a similar way.

Is "TRUTH" important? If so, is it always important, or can myths have value, even if not accuracy?

"God" and "Santa Claus" seem to me to have a lot in common.

Eff

 

[BlackShanglan]

Interesting point. Is it better that people get to give what they want, or what the recipients need? It reminds me of the furor over the Red Cross trying to use the September 11th donations to fund a national blood bank. That was a genuinely tough call.

Solicitation funding is another tricky one. On the one hand, if the charity spends $50,000 fund-raising to generate $50,010, in theory they are still better off. On the other hand, who want to know that their money went to an advertising firm?

Very tough questions indeed. I've been on both sides of the fence (giving and soliciting donations) and still don't know the right answer. Personally, though, I do have a preference for working with small local groups to which I can make some concrete contribution or have some idea of where the money has gone.

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Off at a tangent...

Is "TRUTH" important? If so, is it always important, or can myths have value, even if not accuracy?

Eff

Truth is generally the preferred, but it is not always the best method in interpersonal relationships of any sort. Telling people the truth: the chances for a dead-end job and dead-end life are greater than the chance for glory, that evil usually triumphs over good and crime doesn't just pay but also usually has a better retirement package, or any other painful truth before they are ready risks shattering their motivations, their dreams, and their pursuit of a genuinely decent life and moral structure.

So, yes, lies and incomplete truths while not always good are still sometimes neccessary.

And myths on a tangental can have merit even when known as "false" for the same reason that fiction books have merit. Just because something isn't real or didn't happen, doesn't mean people can't take anything important from it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Agreed. I only append to this the hopeful belief that God probably understands the limitations of human understanding. I am optimistic that the creator will be sympathetic to those confused by the variety of human interpretations, and hopefully will reward those who acted with discipline and earnest goodwill to enact truth as they understood it.

Shanglan

I could be wrong, but I think it says something similer to that in the bible. I think that the actual qeustion addressed is: Should we eat food offered to idols? And if it is ok, should we do it in front of those who believe that it is wrong.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Reason and faith are diametrically opposed and cannot coexist in reality without consequences.

I disagree. Completely.

We can not function without faith. We have faith that things will stay the same or change at a steady function or behave the way we expect.

For example. Every time you come to a door, to you reason it out and figure out how it works- no you exercise a certain amount of faith that it will operate the same way it has before or the way that similer doors you've used work. And then you go ahead and proceed according to that faith. Most of the time it works- but sometimes it doesn't.

We have faith that people are going to behave in a certain way- that dad will keep his promises but mom won't. We have faith that the teller is going to give us change when we over pay, we have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

It would be physically exhastive and probably lead to mental illness to have to reason out every single occurance in our lives.

Maybe not the most cynical of us, but most of us have faith in things of the future that we have no proof for or even experience. We have faith all the time in things we have no proof for, sometimes our faith bears out and sometimes it doesn't. I see no reason why faith in a higher power should be different.

Even faith sometimes in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Are you a fool if you keep the faith that your love will come back from war? Or that you will win your court case? Oh well. Sometimes it is better for your mental health to have faith and hope and keep up good chear than to be *right* And even so- I had faith during a particular court case myself- faith was the only thing that kept me going when it was certain I was going to loose. My lawyer didn't even care if I won or lost. Lucky for me, that lawyer wasn't able to defend me and I got reasigned a better one. It was still an impossible case- but she tried it like it mattered- and guess what --I won my case. this was btw, a lifechanging case that I won't go into here.

Faith- faith was all i had. If I had been 'reasonable' I would have given up-- and certainly proved myself right.

If faith and reason can not coexist in reality- how is it that the dark horse ever wins?

I could go on.

But I'm tired. I think you all get the picture.

 

[cantdog]

Disagreeing with amicus is always a good first step, anyway!

His 'diametrically opposed' is particularly silly.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Disagreeing with amicus is always a good first step, anyway!

His 'diametrically opposed' is particularly silly.

Agreed.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sometimes late at night I sometimes feel that in a world where there is wine, chocolate and marijuana, there must be a God. But then again, this world also has George W Bush. Naaahhh!

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...


Or as some people would say, if there is an absolute good (ie God) then there must be an absolute evil (ie the Devil)

 

[amicus]

I thought indeed I heard my name used in vain through cyberspace and so it was!

Once upon a time it was simple faith that enabled one to expect the sun to rise again and again.

Now we know the mechanics of the solar system and we 'know' that, barring extraordinary catastrophe, we know the sun will rise again and again, and we know why.

And you may surely 'believe' in the fidelity of your partner and you may believe from past experience that the check is in the mail.

But the topic of conversation has been metaphysical, beyond the physical realm into that of imagined deities and other hairy ancestors from the dark ages of man.

I continue to maintain that knowledge, not faith, is the natural function of the human mind. I further uphold that mixing faith with knowledge creates contradictions in the human mind and lead to a dysfunction of the rational process.

There fore, faith, belief, is harmful and destructive.

Welcome back sweetnpetite, nice to hear your razzberry from the upper deck once again.

amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

I continue to maintain that knowledge, not faith, is the natural function of the human mind. I further uphold that mixing faith with knowledge creates contradictions in the human mind and lead to a dysfunction of the rational process.

But given that you've shown no convincing evidence that this is the case ... you would appear to be operating on faith

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Shanglan...

"Originally posted by amicus


I continue to maintain that knowledge, not faith, is the natural function of the human mind. I further uphold that mixing faith with knowledge creates contradictions in the human mind and lead to a dysfunction of the rational process.

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



But given that you've shown no convincing evidence that this is the case ... you would appear to be operating on faith

Shanglan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suggest you research the development of transistors, npn and pnp. Just one of a million examples of the efficacy of the human mind, aka knowledge, that mark the path of man's rational rise from ignorance and faith.

amicus...

 

[curious2c]

Humans, by nature have to believe in something. Many choose to believe in the
God that their parents or other family members chose. Some choose to hold to the 'scientific' view. Yet others choose a combination of all of the above.


One can only choose to believe in what they most feel directly pretains to their core belief's and how or where they choose to practice those belief's is up to them.

In the end, if you believe in a God...then so be it. Enjoy your truths and love. It is what makes you...you.

 

[Kassiana]

"Is it okay to believe in God, if that means believing other people's gods don't exist?"
--Of course it is. It isn’t okay to expect you can then foist that belief on others, especially using the government to do so, or to expect that other people who love their Gods as much as you love yours won’t be offended when you say such cruel things to them about their Gods, but you can believe it. I can believe that the above belief is merely a human and wrongheaded one, too. And I do.

I can't imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being sending people to hell
--I believe there is no hell. It’s a figment of vengeful, limited, frail human beings, not a creation of the Love that is the Gods.

 

[Kassiana]

As for assertions and burden of proof, let me further qualify things.

I only have a burden of proof if I (a) assert something and (b) want you to believe in it.

I couldn't care less if everyone else in the world was an atheist. I don't think there's an afterlife "penalty" for disbelief in the Gods. I believe in the Gods, but I have no interest in getting anyone else to believe in them. I have no burden of proof, then, because I don't care about convincing you that they exist. I'll defend my assertion that I believe in them, certainly, because that belief is true and a part of my life.

But "give me evidence"? No. I won't, because I don't care if you believe what I do. I care about you letting me believe what I wish. I care about you understanding that I believe what I do. But making you believe it too? I have no interest in that.

 

[Kassiana]

I used to be an atheist.
--Hey, me too! From ages 11-13!

13-26 I was a Christian fundamentalist.

I got better, though.

Now I'm a Pagan theist attending a UU church. My mother's an atheist.

 

[Pure]

Ami said, //I continue to maintain that knowledge, not faith, is the natural function of the human mind. I further uphold that mixing faith with knowledge creates contradictions in the human mind and lead to a dysfunction of the rational process.

There fore, faith, belief, is harmful and destructive.//

One needs to define faith. But on the score of optimism, there are some studies showing its benefits. Depressives, it turns out, tend to have the most accurate view of the future--i.e., that good things will often NOT happen, or come to an end. But the 'irrational' optimists are often psychologically more healthy. One can think, too, of a number of apparently hopeless situation, like being afloat, alone, in a large lake, with, by the stats, almost zero chance of rescue. Yet some of those who keep afloat, keep struggling "against the odds" DO get rescued.

As to 'knowledge' being a 'natural function' of the mind. Where is the evidence. Look, in the lab, at experimentally induced superstitions. Further look at the course of human history. It's 'natural' for the mind to make all kinds of weird connections.
If a crow flies overhead and you break your leg the next minute, you make the connection, and have the 'natural' but irrational belief in the 'bad omen.'

Again, there have been a number of studies of 'natural tendencies' regarding statistical phenomena (Tverksy and Kahneman). People, including statisticians, even, make patterns of mistakes that don't fit the actual numbers and situation. Here is one simple example: Many mental problems dissolve or greatly abate in a year or so, for example lots of 'anxiety states'. Yet many people, after about a year of therapy, claim to have been helped by it. What they are ignoring is the 'base rate' of recovery. Their 'natural mind' has led them astray.

Kassiana says,

As for assertions and burden of proof, let me further qualify things.

I only have a burden of proof if I (a) assert something and (b) want you to believe in it.

I couldn't care less if everyone else in the world was an atheist. I don't think there's an afterlife "penalty" for disbelief in the Gods. I believe in the Gods, but I have no interest in getting anyone else to believe in them. I have no burden of proof, then, because I don't care about convincing you that they exist. I'll defend my assertion that I believe in them, certainly, because that belief is true and a part of my life.

But "give me evidence"? No. I won't, because I don't care if you believe what I do. I care about you letting me believe what I wish. I care about you understanding that I believe what I do. But making you believe it too? I have no interest in that.

----
Kassiana, that sounds just a little too pat. More or less you're saying you believe what suits you, and the issue of evidence or reasons is not relevant since you don't care-- or indeed respect-- what others believe. You don't proselytize.

The attitude of 'I believe what I choose, and it's my right and I don't need to explain or justify it' is pretty common around these forums. In one sense, yes, in this society the flat earth persons and believers in Jesus, Joseph Smith, and David Koresh all have that right. A number of Jews believed in the false messiah, Sabbatai Zvi (false according to the mainstream).

While the 'respect' part of your system is admirable, I think you're still left with the basic question, is what you believe supposed to make any sense, to have any coherence? You will say, "the only issue is making sense to me." Maybe, but I see you've associated with the UU group who share a number of beliefs, and tend mostly not to be Christian. Yet few of you believe in the Great Pumpkin. Why is that?

Do you have any kind of 'screening procedure' of is it 'believe as you feel at the moment.' If someone says, "Take this water, washed over a page of the Koran; it will heal." Do you believe, not believe, flip a coin, or what? If someone says, when you have a fever, "Starve the fever; that will cure it. (the old maxim)" do you believe it or not?
"I'm me; I have my rights; I choose my beliefs; I let yours alone." is kind of neat cocoon, and at least you're not going on a crusade, but you opt out of any serious discussion, and that's your right, also. I too, have no desire to proselytize the nondangerous, so I don't bother, except for amusement, with the flatearthers, Rev Moon's followers, UU believers in the Great Pumpkin or Mother Mouse; or granny and her bottle of colored 'tonic water' which 'cures' the 'blue uglies.'

The "I believe as I please" folks are somewhat like the "I do as I please" folks. When non dangerous, they can be 'let live.' When they do weird things to their kids--- here we had a case of wrapping the sick kid in cabbage leaves-- then we get involved and hold them to 'rational standards.' For our own protection and that of their kids.

In a word, I'd rather meet up with you than Torquemada, Rev Moon, or Jerry Falwell, but I don't know if I want you in charge of my kids medical regime.



PS (my bro is UU)

 

[BlackShanglan]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suggest you research the development of transistors, npn and pnp. Just one of a million examples of the efficacy of the human mind, aka knowledge, that mark the path of man's rational rise from ignorance and faith.

amicus...

This shows human ingenuity. And what a wonderful thing that is, except when you lot are using it to blow each other up or torture each other pointlessly. But it fails to show any conflict between this and the idea of a divine being. There's no conflict. Nothing stops the two from co-existing.

Shanglan

 

[robynwildchild]

we're all free to believe in whatever our hearts desire sweetheart.. have some security in that!

 

[cantdog]

amicus, in this and in your own thread, you point out at length not just the historical instances of religiously-inspired mayhem, ignorance, and evil, but also indicate that the temporal power of the yahoos is growing.

Yet you support complete personal freedom. You certainly couldn't be suggesting a legal or governmental intervention to prevent the rise of these nutcases to further influence. So what sort of countermeasure do you advocate for?

cantdog

 

[amicus]

Hi, Cantdog...

Consistent with my advocacy of individual freedom, I urge with the same fervency the protection of individual rights.

The founding documents of the USA contain sufficient means to muzzle the 'yahoo's' when they get uppity.

I would suggest than any and all who can, should participate in local school boards to keep the 'creationists' and the 'intelligent design' folks at bay.

The ideal situation would be to abolish public education and permit parents to choose how they educate their children.

I think a closer adherance to the separation of church and state within the halls of congress is warranted. Unfortunately the wording, "Endowed by the 'creator'" is contained in a seminal document and leaves a door wide open for interpretation.

It is a battle...I wrote for a small newspaper here in the south for a few months and covered the local schools. These 'yahoo's' use school facilities for religious functions on a regular basis, have preachers and ministers offer prayer for school events and coaches say prayers before athletic contests. Of course my editor would not print any criticism of the practice.

I am very wary of the 'faith based' services funded by the federal government concerning social and charitable services.

Although I usually do not support the work of the ACLU, they at least challenge the efforts by fundamentalists to infiltrate public life with religious symbols and teachings.

I know that did not fully answer your question but it is a long fight up from the faith and ignorance of the recent past to a rational level of existence.

amicus...

 

[nushu2]

There's a line out of 'Big Fish' that I have to recall from memory. Forgive the inaccuracy.

"Did you know there's a jungle in Africa where all the parakeets have learned to speak French. All day long, they squawk, in French, about politics, philosophy and art. Everything, except religion."

"Why not religion?"

"That would be rude."

"I've been to Africa."

"Then, you know."

 

[Amy Sweet]

The long and short of it is that some of us believe there is a god (or gods) and some of us believe that there is not. As amicus is an athiest, he believes that there is not- thus he has belief, based on facts, experiences, knowlege whatever- our beliefs are also based on the same.

The only one who could claim *not* to have belief would be an agnostic- and not all of them would. But to claim a knowlege that there is no god, is to express and put forth a belief. While I realize that you can't proove a negative, that is beside the point. You believe something which you know based on your information and that is no different from someone else believing something else based on their information.

Only if you said, "I don't know," could you claim not to have belief. Since you do claim to know- you do have belief. And since you can't proove it, it still remains a belief. Just because it's a negative and can't be prooven- that doesn't automatically make it true. And I think that is were your argument fails.

PS- good to see you too amicus. In case you didn't know- this is sweetnpetite

 

[Amy Sweet]

Hi, Cantdog...

Consistent with my advocacy of individual freedom, I urge with the same fervency the protection of individual rights.

The founding documents of the USA contain sufficient means to muzzle the 'yahoo's' when they get uppity.

I would suggest than any and all who can, should participate in local school boards to keep the 'creationists' and the 'intelligent design' folks at bay.

The ideal situation would be to abolish public education and permit parents to choose how they educate their children.

I think a closer adherance to the separation of church and state within the halls of congress is warranted. Unfortunately the wording, "Endowed by the 'creator'" is contained in a seminal document and leaves a door wide open for interpretation.

It is a battle...I wrote for a small newspaper here in the south for a few months and covered the local schools. These 'yahoo's' use school facilities for religious functions on a regular basis, have preachers and ministers offer prayer for school events and coaches say prayers before athletic contests. Of course my editor would not print any criticism of the practice.

I am very wary of the 'faith based' services funded by the federal government concerning social and charitable services.

Although I usually do not support the work of the ACLU, they at least challenge the efforts by fundamentalists to infiltrate public life with religious symbols and teachings.

I know that did not fully answer your question but it is a long fight up from the faith and ignorance of the recent past to a rational level of existence.

amicus...

You know, from this post- you sound like an ok guy.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
The long and short of it is that some of us believe there is a god (or gods) and some of us believe that there is not. As amicus is an athiest, he believes that there is not- thus he has belief, based on facts, experiences, knowlege whatever- our beliefs are also based on the same.

The only one who could claim *not* to have belief would be an agnostic- and not all of them would. But to claim a knowlege that there is no god, is to express and put forth a belief. While I realize that you can't proove a negative, that is beside the point. You believe something which you know based on your information and that is no different from someone else believing something else based on their information.

At the risk of siding with amicus a bit, I think the quality of that information is entirely relavent--and not all informations, or beliefs, are necessarily equal. Beliefs based on poor information, reasoning, or results are fairly poor beliefs (to say nothing of the higher chance of them being violently inaccurate).

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Off at a tangent...

The conversation went on to whether presenting children with the Santa Claus myth was 'wrong' in a similar way.

Is "TRUTH" important? If so, is it always important, or can myths have value, even if not accuracy?

"God" and "Santa Claus" seem to me to have a lot in common.

Eff

Funny you should mention that. I just read and enjoyed this article today:

Do you believe in Santa?