Why we need a God?

[ilmkidunya]

We Muslims believe that the whole universe is created by a God, Allah Almighty and one day we have to be infront of Allah Almighty and we are accountable for our deeds in the world.

dear this is the only reason which stops me from doing wrong things, like killing, crruptions, dishonesty and other things.

I am assure just because i know that i am accountable to a personality Who knows whatever I do, I don't have fear of laws of our country as rulers and courts can't judge accurately who is good or bad...

[billl]

this is the only reason which stops me from doing wrong things, like killing, crruptions, dishonesty and other things.


I would like to think that your affection for your parents and siblings (and children) would stop you from doing harm to them. And that the habit would extend, to various but generous extents, to friends and other people beyond the family, even strangers. I am sure, in any case, that humans do not need to be so fearful to be good.

EDIT: but if your point is that you think a government is corrupt, and that you need not respect or trust its laws or rulings, then I understand what you're saying. Without even being afraid of Allah, I'd have to agree with you, be it your government or mine, in some instances at least.

[cacian]

I think most believers believe that God created the universe.
Why do we need God?
I am not sure this is the right question.(for me anymay)

May be questions like thes for me would apply.

Did you find God whilst on this earth? Should you be searching for God whilst on this earth?


If the answer is yes then one should explain why.
If the answer is no one also should explain why.

And to answer your question:

Needs are many things.
Humans are always wanting/needing things and God is justanother thing they add to their list.
The quest for the holy grail is also sought and wanted by many.
needing is accumulating objects as well as things that cannot be gotten like a holy something or a God.
As far as I know God does not impact in how I survive on this earth, until then I contine to need other more urgent things like happiness and life.

so another very good question could be
does God need you to need him/her?

[odliam]

Before answering why we "need" a God, we must decide if we believe in His existence. If we do not believe in His existence, then the following is irrelevant.

Believing is not an easy task!

It is a personal, nontransferable "feeling" (to put it a name).

Believing is impossible of defining; you know you believe, or not, that's it. If we try to tell somebody if we, or why, we believe, the end is as if we want to tell another what "red" means. You know roses can be red, and everybody will agree, but no one will know exactly what "red" means in other person mind.

Humankind appeared in a world highly volatile and that makes us vulnerable and insecure.

If you believe God created us, and have a Plan for humankind, then it is highly probable that you think human beings are made in this fashion because we "must" need Him. Why? It is a little bit risky to guess God's reasons to do something, but we may flatter ourselves thinking He wants us with free will and at the same time do not lose the control of events.

On the other hand we may consider that when He created us, put an empty place into our chest as big as an infinity that only can be filled by He Himself, that is why we need Him and only Him, since there is no other thing in the Universe that can fill the void in our soul. Why He did this, again it is a matter of guessing, but one possibility is that He really loves us very much.

This ideas are a bit elaborated but they have the advantage to make possible a reality without the so heavy human explanation about sin and its derivatives.

¬O.

[ariadnethread]

Believing is impossible of defining because it is a fruitless whim. You must KNOW. There is nothing beyond that.

If in fact your 'GOD' left an empty place in your chest so that it may be filled by said God, then it is not you who this God loves, but himself. That is a selfish act. Selfishness rarely can be coupled with altruistic love.
Should you be searching God whilst on this earth? Perhaps the answer lies in the feeling you get from saying such things. At least answer this question to yourself, "how long am I willing to search?"

"Life is always in the right."
-Rilke

...and happiness is another cue to who and what God is. The thorough answer is seamlessly found in pain, tragedy and error.

Question: If god stops your from doing violent deeds and desires, and you never confront that Almighty entity, will you regret the abstinence of your own tyranny?

[odliam]

Believing is impossible of defining because it is a fruitless whim. You must KNOW. There is nothing beyond that.

If in fact your 'GOD' left an empty place in your chest so that it may be filled by said God, then it is not you who this God loves, but himself. That is a selfish act. Selfishness rarely can be coupled with altruistic love.
Should you be searching God whilst on this earth? Perhaps the answer lies in the feeling you get from saying such things. At least answer this question to yourself, "how long am I willing to search?"

"Life is always in the right."
-Rilke

...and happiness is another cue to who and what God is. The thorough answer is seamlessly found in pain, tragedy and error.

Question: If god stops your from doing violent deeds and desires, and you never confront that Almighty entity, will you regret the abstinence of your own tyranny?


Hi ariadnethread

At the beginning... I thought not to answer you since there is no place and time here for this subject, then I said to myself, OK, let's make this last step.

You are stating a great truth in saying that "you must know"!

Every true believer knows God exists, only there is the need to respect those who do not know (or believe); from that respect, is the need of the change of verbs to "believe", or "think that" since there is no proof to present. If your mind needs scientific proof of theological feelings, maybe I could ask you theological proof that two plus two are four. But this disquisition is not here nor there, and absolutely irrelevant.

I guess you think there is a different God for any human being, from there you say "your God". He is not my God, not in the least!

Even if it may be convenient to have possession of a God, which is an oxymoron.

Now again there is a small quiver in your statement about selfishness of God. I won't try to tell you something you do not feel true, so I will let you develop the explanation: Of course God loves Himself! He is everything in everything, so how can He not love himself! If this appears to you as a selfish motion it is because you "think" God as a human being, which He is not!

Happiness is a road to walk in, not a place to dwell. But that is another theme.

Pain is the answer to many of the questions humankind makes, but refuses (or fears) to answer.

Your question has no answer since there is no way God would stop me from doing whatever I want. And the abstinence of human tyranny is nothing less that the elaborated human develop of the Manichean dual belief.

You see, too complicated to give a simple explanation! Thank you for your patience!

¬O.

[F2ionA76]

God is everything. god is a faith.The religion book some times is great.he guide our behavior which is law unable to do.
Just like Bible, seven Sin , greedy, anger, overeat ect.
God is kind of hope.When we in trouble we will pray ,when we guilty and pray etc.http://www.NEWMEETS.INFO/avatar1.jpg
God bless you.

[Darcy88]

You are stating a great truth in saying that "you must know"!

Every true believer knows God exists, only there is the need to respect those who do not know (or believe); from that respect, is the need of the change of verbs to "believe", or "think that" since there is no proof to present. If your mind needs scientific proof of theological feelings, maybe I could ask you theological proof that two plus two are four. But this disquisition is not here nor there, and absolutely irrelevant.


How do you know? I understand how you could believe and I respect that, but I don't see how you could definitively know. If a homicidal genie put a gun to your child's head and told you that he would pull the trigger if you answered the question of whether there is a God or not wrong, I'm sure you, or at least most believers, would experience a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

[BookBeauty]

I've been told once, by an Atheist, that it's generally people without knowledge or common sense, who need a God to believe in.

The reason stated was, if people thought they could get away with any number of things, they would, because they would no longer fear Hell. Actually, there has been clear evidence of this. When people see that they can get away with despicable acts without being punished by the law, they often do. Religious or not.

However, there are many intelligent, educated people, who are Atheists, that believe in integrity, morality and ethics, and never commit a crime. And there are those that do.

Building an ethical and moral system for oneself does not need to depend upon God or faith, but an understanding of right and wrong. Even if children aren't taught about God, they are taught ethical and moral standards. But, it all depends on the parents.

It also depends upon where you were raised in the world. For example, if you were born in China, you might be a Buddhist or Taoist.

Those that realize rightness and wrongness outside of their faith are those that I respect the most.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

dear this is the only reason which stops me from doing wrong things, like killing, crruptions, dishonesty and other things.



So, if there wasn't a god you'd be accountable to you'd just start killing people? :lol: I'm thinking this desire to murder people won't be looked kindly upon a supposed god, either.

[BienvenuJDC]

So, if there wasn't a god you'd be accountable to you'd just start killing people? :lol: I'm thinking this desire to murder people won't be looked kindly upon a supposed god, either.

That is an excellent point. I guess the reason that I don't do evil things to people is because I care about others.

[Jair]

Weren't they Islamic scholars who originally cultivated the idea of a philosophically inevitable God?

[BienvenuJDC]

What exactly is a "philosophically inevitable God"?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What exactly is a "philosophically inevitable God"?

Something only philosophers could come up with.

[Darcy88]

Islamic philosophy has a very sophisticated branch of inquiry dedicated to logically considering God. They came up with some good arguments that some people think "prove" the existence of God, though obviously they are not compelling enough to convert most atheists who study them. I think this is what Jair was talking about. "Philosophically inevitable" sounds like another way of saying "logically necessary," "proven," ect.

[Varenne Rodin]

About 99% of all prison inmates in the United States claim to be some form of Christian. The other 1% also believe in some type of deity or worship the devil and etc. Based on this, I don't know of anything that conclusively suggests that atheists are prone to criminal behavior. Certainly not more so, or even equal to, people who claim to have a god in their lives.

[Darcy88]

Yes Varenne. The whole theist line about people needing God in order to be moral is a bunch of bologna. People had morality long before Judaism and Christianity and Islam came about. The Greeks had a moral code and their gods were lusty violent brats. I think religion and God can help some people live better moral lives. I see it all the time. But being a believer doesn't make you ethically superior by any means.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well said, Darcy. :)

[Rores28]

About 99% of all prison inmates in the United States claim to be some form of Christian. The other 1% also believe in some type of deity or worship the devil and etc. Based on this, I don't know of anything that conclusively suggests that atheists are prone to criminal behavior. Certainly not more so, or even equal to, people who claim to have a god in their lives.

I find this statistic a little hard to believe. Do you have a source for it?

[Varenne Rodin]

I find this statistic a little hard to believe. Do you have a source for it?

I said "about". Atheists make up less than one percent. There are some gray areas for religious people and the categories they fall under. My source is the criminology studying I did in college. Google it. If I'm wrong, come back and give me your source.

Here's another: I'm an atheist. I've never felt being godless gives me license to hurt people.

[Jair]

Islamic philosophy has a very sophisticated branch of inquiry dedicated to logically considering God. They came up with some good arguments that some people think "prove" the existence of God, though obviously they are not compelling enough to convert most atheists who study them. I think this is what Jair was talking about. "Philosophically inevitable" sounds like another way of saying "logically necessary," "proven," ect.

Thank you.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

About 99% of all prison inmates in the United States claim to be some form of Christian. The other 1% also believe in some type of deity or worship the devil and etc. Based on this, I don't know of anything that conclusively suggests that atheists are prone to criminal behavior. Certainly not more so, or even equal to, people who claim to have a god in their lives.

The key word here is "claim." If you're up against a parol review board, what do you want to tell them regardless of the truth: that you're an atheist, that you're a Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu, or someone who has rediscovered Jesus? The answer is simple. I have a friend who spent five years in prison--it's a game you play, a facade one creates. In a lot of cases, you can't be yourself in prison.

[cacian]

well one way of looking at this question is to ask yourself this
does God need you?
If you think it is a yes then you must need God too
and if it is a No then you can't really need that much
and if it is not sure then I would leave it at that.
At the end of the day one must concentrate in fully living thy life instead of constantly nagging at gods or religions or on whether god agrees or god doesn't.
The present life is more important if one cannot make their minds up or have no beliefs.
No one is going to worry nor care if one has not got answers from a God they cannot see or hear.

[Varenne Rodin]

The key word here is "claim." If you're up against a parol review board, what do you want to tell them regardless of the truth: that you're an atheist, that you're a Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu, or someone who has rediscovered Jesus? The answer is simple. I have a friend who spent five years in prison--it's a game you play, a facade one creates. In a lot of cases, you can't be yourself in prison.

I thought that too at first, but consider that secular people don't even make up 11% of the United States population (based on the latest census reports). That near 11% includes Buddhists, Wiccans, and "other religion". Around 80% rang in as some form of Christian. I know several secular people. There is nothing violent or criminal about them. I think it has been proven over and over that being aware, that we don't know a god, does not lead to lawlessness, and there is zero indication that secular people are inherently "evil" (as many Christians prefer to believe in order to shore up the delusion that god makes them good). I'm not saying there have never been disgusting secular people, of course there are and have been, but simple math points to the majority of criminals in the US being Christian.

Sure, you can make the argument that some claims of Christian faith are lies. The argument could also be made that all of those claims are lies, in and out of prison.

And seriously, violent Buddhists? That violence would have zero to do with their religious practices, if that's the case.

[cacian]

And seriously, violent Buddhists? That violence would have zero to do with their religious practices, if that's the case.

actually when you think about it lots of catholic priests were sexual predators, which is a kind of physical violence.
Lots of religions are violence driven.

[Paulclem]

actually when you think about it lots of catholic priests were sexual predators, which is a kind of physical violence.
Lots of religions are violence driven.

"Lots" is misleading given that the vast majority of priests are not sexual predators.

Religions are not violence driven given their texts and teachings, but they may be used to justify violence in all sorts of arenas such as the political world etc. This is often nothing to do with the religion.

[Varenne Rodin]

I've known nice Catholics and horribly dangerous Catholics. I've never known a violent Buddhist. There have probably been some, but Buddhism promotes peace and forward thinking. Catholicism might promote peace + judgement + fear. I think it's different. Maybe I'm wrong.

[cacian]

I've known nice Catholics and horribly dangerous Catholics. I've never known a violent Buddhist. There have probably been some, but Buddhism promotes peace and forward thinking. Catholicism might promote peace + judgement + fear. I think it's different. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hi Varenne you got your finger on it the word 'fear' is what I was trying to get at.

[Paulclem]

I've known nice Catholics and horribly dangerous Catholics. I've never known a violent Buddhist. There have probably been some, but Buddhism promotes peace and forward thinking. Catholicism might promote peace + judgement + fear. I think it's different. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think you're right, though there have been and will be violent and exploitative Buddhists. There have also been wars involving Buddhist nations.

Perhaps one of the reasons is that the teachings build in the idea that anger is unskillful and harmful to yourself. If a Buddhist killed someone, then karma dictates that they have actually done themselves more harm in the long run than the person they killed.

In the short term the dead person has lost their life, but in the long run they have had that aspect of their karma removed. (That is of course not much solace to the family in this life). The killer though, even if they continue to live, will not escape an unfortunate rebirth and a lack of opportunity to become human again until that negative karma runs out.

There are practices that can be done to purify this, but it is a heavy weight.

One famous Tibetan - Milarepa - killed the family that had usurped his farmlands through black magic. He caused the building to collapse upon them. Through remorse he resolved to purify this action and took a teacher - Marpa - who appeared to treat him very badly, but with the intention of helping Milarepa to exercise his negative karma. Through his practice he became a great teacher.

Another famous figure is a serial killer Angulimala, who was misled by a teacher to collect a necklace of fingers. He attempted to kill The Buddha, but was unable to catch him. Instead The Buddha converted him, and he became a practitioner, though he was stoned in certain villages where he had been operating. The Buddha's comment on that was that it was his own negative karma and he had to bear it.

I'm sure most Buddhists are not like this though. :D

[Varenne Rodin]

Hi Varenne you got your finger on it the word 'fear' is what I was trying to get at.

It's like Master Yoda said, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

[cacian]

It's like Master Yoda said, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

and suffering leads to violence and destruction.
A very negative aspect to any religion I think.

[Varenne Rodin]

I think you're right, though there have been and will be violent and exploitative Buddhists. There have also been wars involving Buddhist nations.

Perhaps one of the reasons is that the teachings build in the idea that anger is unskillful and harmful to yourself. If a Buddhist killed someone, then karma dictates that they have actually done themselves more harm in the long run than the person they killed.

In the short term the dead person has lost their life, but in the long run they have had that aspect of their karma removed. (That is of course not much solace to the family in this life). The killer though, even if they continue to live, will not escape an unfortunate rebirth and a lack of opportunity to become human again until that negative karma runs out.

There are practices that can be done to purify this, but it is a heavy weight.

One famous Tibetan - Milarepa - killed the family that had usurped his farmlands through black magic. He caused the building to collapse upon them. Through remorse he resolved to purify this action and took a teacher - Marpa - who appeared to treat him very badly, but with the intention of helping Milarepa to exercise his negative karma. Through his practice he became a great teacher.

Another famous figure is a serial killer Angulimala, who was misled by a teacher to collect a necklace of fingers. He attempted to kill The Buddha, but was unable to catch him. Instead The Buddha converted him, and he became a practitioner, though he was stoned in certain villages where he had been operating. The Buddha's comment on that was that it was his own negative karma and he had to bear it.

I'm sure most Buddhists are not like this though. :D

You make me want to be a Buddhist, Clem. The stories are so beautiful. Thank you for sharing them. An aside- what are your favorite Buddhist books? I would like to read them for inspiration.

[Rores28]

I said "about". Atheists make up less than one percent. There are some gray areas for religious people and the categories they fall under. My source is the criminology studying I did in college. Google it. If I'm wrong, come back and give me your source.

Here's another: I'm an atheist. I've never felt being godless gives me license to hurt people.


This document discusses some of the statistics available pertaining to prison incarceration and religious affiliation. Specific religious groups show different levels of correlation with incarceration, although there are multiple reasons for this. Members of some religious groups are more likely to commit crimes and be imprisoned, resulting in a higher incarceration rate. But some religious groups show higher rates of incarceration than found in the general population because of their heavy emphasis on prison ministry and higher level of success in prison-based recruitment (e.g., general Muslims, Nation of Islam, Scientologists).

3. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.

Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.)

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

An admittedly biased source but the points listed above add wrinkles of complication to the 99% claim.

This is interesting too.

Source: Peggy Fikac. "More prison inmates say they're Baptist than any other religion." Associated Press (The Abilene Reporter-News)

Baptist 39,781 30.3%
Unknown* 28,890 22.0%
Catholic 23,637 18.0%
Other 39,009 29.7%
-------- ------- ------
Total 131,316 100.0%

[blazeofglory]

Very honestly speaking I do not know whether there is God or not. I have no experience or evidence to prove the existence of God nor do I have any reason to disprove.

But I do not want to agree with those materialists who advocate the limitation or termination of life upon death. I want to break through mental barriers that have barricaded a world of atheists to confine their existences within their corporal confinements.

I believe very strongly that life goes on and on beyond death eternally and I cannot experience in what form. Even after death I will not die as we generally understand what death is. I will be in different states or forms or manifestations. I may be turned into stone or soil or water or air but I will be there through those states very much alive.

That is why I believe in the immortality of man and this immortality is the presence of God or some power that integrates us universally. There is no heaven or hell or God's kingdom or the son or father of God. That is a myth only. We all are Gods.

[Rores28]

You make me want to be a Buddhist, Clem. The stories are so beautiful. Thank you for sharing them. An aside- what are your favorite Buddhist books? I would like to read them for inspiration.

Are they? The second one sounds sort of appalling.

[Rores28]

Very honestly speaking I do not know whether there is God or not. I have no experience or evidence to prove the existence of God nor do I have any reason to disprove.

But I do not want to agree with those materialists who advocate the limitation or termination of life upon death. I want to break through mental barriers that have barricaded a world of atheists to confine their existences within their corporal confinements.

I believe very strongly that life goes on and on beyond death eternally and I cannot experience in what form. Even after death I will not die as we generally understand what death is. I will be in different states or forms or manifestations. I may be turned into stone or soil or water or air but I will be there through those states very much alive.

That is why I believe in the immortality of man and this immortality is the presence of God or some power that integrates us universally. There is no heaven or hell or God's kingdom or the son or father of God. That is a myth only. We all are Gods.

Of course your atoms or material constituents will be recycled back into other things, soil, rocks, hypodermic needles, 9mm, etc, but the question is... Is there anything it is like to be those things?

Will you have experience of what it is like to be soil if .00001% of "your" atoms make up a plot of farmland?

Perhaps, but it seems pretty unlikely. So while "you" will be all those things in the absolute broadest sense of the word, I question whether there is really any meaningful sense in which "you" will even "be" at all, assuming that you don't believe in more traditional view of the afterlife.

[stuntpickle]

Of course your atoms or material constituents will be recycled back into other things, soil, rocks, hypodermic needles, 9mm, etc, but the question is... Is there anything it is like to be those things?

Will you have experience of what it is like to be soil if .00001% of "your" atoms make up a plot of farmland?

Perhaps, but it seems pretty unlikely. So while "you" will be all those things in the absolute broadest sense of the word, I question whether there is really any meaningful sense in which "you" will even "be" at all, assuming that you don't believe in more traditional view of the afterlife.

What I am about to say is hardly the consensus opinion, but it has been proposed outside of any theological structure that because of quantum entanglement, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," the "you" might persist in a dreamlike state, despite the physical disbursal of your matter. My point is that what you're implying here seems to assume some naturalistic premises that may not be warranted. I have elsewhere recommended you read about Godel, who is widely considered the foremost logician of the 20th Century. Start with his letters. He makes, I think, a fairly good argument about why we are not justified in presuming the dissolution of the self at death.

[Thomas Novosel]

I always just saw god as the creater or morals, and presented a standard for living your life.

[Varenne Rodin]

This document discusses some of the statistics available pertaining to prison incarceration and religious affiliation. Specific religious groups show different levels of correlation with incarceration, although there are multiple reasons for this. Members of some religious groups are more likely to commit crimes and be imprisoned, resulting in a higher incarceration rate. But some religious groups show higher rates of incarceration than found in the general population because of their heavy emphasis on prison ministry and higher level of success in prison-based recruitment (e.g., general Muslims, Nation of Islam, Scientologists).

3. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.

Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.)

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

An admittedly biased source but the points listed above add wrinkles of complication to the 99% claim.

This is interesting too.

Source: Peggy Fikac. "More prison inmates say they're Baptist than any other religion." Associated Press (The Abilene Reporter-News)

Baptist 39,781 30.3%
Unknown* 28,890 22.0%
Catholic 23,637 18.0%
Other 39,009 29.7%
-------- ------- ------
Total 131,316 100.0%

Those numbers are false, misinterpreted, and incomplete. Thank you for mentioning that you cited a biased source. Religion doesn't make people good, and atheism doesn't make people bad. Christians of differing denominations are not Buddhists or Atheists. I would never lie and call myself a Christian. I also wouldn't be prone to conversion in that situation. People who are, are either weak minded, or are not really atheists.

If so many people are converted in prison, and "having a god" really prevents criminal behavior, why are there so many repeat offenders? Let's just be honest and admit that Christians are not superior to every other non-Christian person on the planet. Lovely fantasy that makes secular people into demons for the zealots to scorn.

What I don't fully understand is, why do Christians need to see secular people as evil? Either your faith is in question and hating us further supports it, or your religion is so fundamentally screwed up that it leads to fear and hatred of people who are different from you.

[blazeofglory]

Of course your atoms or material constituents will be recycled back into other things, soil, rocks, hypodermic needles, 9mm, etc, but the question is... Is there anything it is like to be those things?

Will you have experience of what it is like to be soil if .00001% of "your" atoms make up a plot of farmland?

Perhaps, but it seems pretty unlikely. So while "you" will be all those things in the absolute broadest sense of the word, I question whether there is really any meaningful sense in which "you" will even "be" at all, assuming that you don't believe in more traditional view of the afterlife.

Very fine analytic response. In fact the subtlety of life is not in the size of the atom. It is the expansiveness in the atom. Every atom carries a universe of its own. I cannot argue to give a satisfactory response. You will have to read the Vedas or the Upanishads and the wisdom of the Rishis or Pundits in these great resources give a great revelation.

[Rores28]

What I am about to say is hardly the consensus opinion, but it has been proposed outside of any theological structure that because of quantum entanglement, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," the "you" might persist in a dreamlike state, despite the physical disbursal of your matter. My point is that what you're implying here seems to assume some naturalistic premises that may not be warranted. I have elsewhere recommended you read about Godel, who is widely considered the foremost logician of the 20th Century. Start with his letters. He makes, I think, a fairly good argument about why we are not justified in presuming the dissolution of the self at death.

I am very vaguely familiar with this view, I will add him to my amazon :). I do have a book entitled Godel, Escher, Bach, which I have not had time to read.

I've also been somewhat enchanted by the ideas associated with Gaia theory, you know the position that there may be higher levels of knowing or consciousness or interesting emergent properties that arise at higher levels of organization like societies, ecosystems, planetary systems ect.


Those numbers are false, misinterpreted, and incomplete. Thank you for mentioning that you cited a biased source. Religion doesn't make people good, and atheism doesn't make people bad. Christians of differing denominations are not Buddhists or Atheists. I would never lie and call myself a Christian. I also wouldn't be prone to conversion in that situation. People who are, are either weak minded, or are not really atheists.

I haven't suggested that religion or atheism makes people good or bad. I just thought the "99% of inmates are Christian" was little misleading/simplistic, and the link brought up some interesting areas of complication.



If so many people are converted in prison, and "having a god" really prevents criminal behavior, why are there so many repeat offenders? Let's just be honest and admit that Christians are not superior to every other non-Christian person on the planet. Lovely fantasy that makes secular people into demons for the zealots to scorn.


I feel like you have really imputed me with a series of claims that I've never made.



What I don't fully understand is, why do Christians need to see secular people as evil? Either your faith is in question and hating us further supports it, or your religion is so fundamentally screwed up that it leads to fear and hatred of people who are different from you.

While many christians do see secular people as evil many also see them as misguided or mistaken. I imagine seeing them as evil makes it easier emotionally to justify certain behaviors among other things. It's also a broader phenomenon of the "us vs them" mentality. In some ways I think its like asking why do Red Sox fans hate Yankee fans.


Those numbers are false, misinterpreted, and incomplete.

This may well be true, but the burden of proof was on you to verify the statistic you propounded. Instead I cited a source with differing numbers, which you have asserted are false, misinterpreted, and incomplete. But you haven't provided me with any reasons as to how they are so, nor have you provided me with a source for your initial statistic, which is all that I was really asking for.

[stuntpickle]

I am very vaguely familiar with this view, I will add him to my amazon :). I do have a book entitled Godel, Escher, Bach, which I have not had time to read.

I've also been somewhat enchanted by the ideas associated with Gaia theory, you know the position that there may be higher levels of knowing or consciousness or interesting emergent properties that arise at higher levels of organization like societies, ecosystems, planetary systems ect.

I don't want to give you the impression that Godel endorsed the theory I mentioned. That's just something currently afloat in the community of persons examining quantum consciousness. Godel is known more for demonstrating that the more exact a system is the more incomplete it is and how truth does not necessarily entail provability. I was careful to say you should read "about Godel" since most of what Godel wrote, himself, concerns very high level math and logic and is likely to be inscrutable by all but the most knowledgeable reader.

I don't have a problem with Hofstadter, per se, but I think you might be better served by reading Godel himself if you want to know what Godel thought. His letters are quite readable; however, you might be a bit dismayed by some of what he says unless you have a basic background in introductory logic.

To be honest I find most notions of emergence currently discussed in philosophy to be a bit sinister. It mostly seems to claim something like a grain of sand is stupid, but a beach is a genius. I guess I don't believe that consciousness is a function of complexity.

[Rores28]

Very fine analytic response. In fact the subtlety of life is not in the size of the atom. It is the expansiveness in the atom. Every atom carries a universe of its own. I cannot argue to give a satisfactory response. You will have to read the Vedas or the Upanishads and the wisdom of the Rishis or Pundits in these great resources give a great revelation.

I guess I don't buy that you can't explain it to me. Can you try to explain it to me, or give me a few more examples or a rough approximation. If this view is true I'd be interested to know about it, but you must be able in some way to distill it or give me a preview or an explanatory framework on something.

Also we aren't talking about "life" as you say in the broad sense. We are talking about some level of sentient or ability to experience.

Consider this example:

I chop off your hand grind it up and reconstitute the atoms (I have some crazy alien technology) to make a baseball. In what way are you both you and baseball at this point?

What about if I did the same thing with the left hemisphere of your brain?


I don't want to give you the impression that Godel endorsed the theory I mentioned. That's just something currently afloat in the community of persons examining quantum consciousness. Godel is known more for demonstrating that the more exact a system is the more incomplete it is and how truth does not necessarily entail provability. I was careful to say you should read "about Godel" since most of what Godel wrote, himself, concerns very high level math and logic and is likely to be inscrutable by all but the most knowledgeable reader.


Gotcha, is there a specific text you could/would recommend which translates his findings? How would I get a hold of his letters? Are they collected in a single book?



I don't have a problem with Hofstadter, per se, but I think you might be better served by reading Godel himself if you want to know what Godel thought. His letters are quite readable; however, you might be a bit dismayed by some of what he says unless you have a basic background in introductory logic.


Do you mean dismayed figuratively in that it is hard to understand, or dismayed emotionally?



To be honest I find most notions of emergence currently discussed in philosophy to be a bit sinister. It mostly seems to claim something like a grain of sand is stupid, but a beach is a genius. I guess I don't believe that consciousness is a function of complexity.

I honestly don't know enough about it to say much else on the subject, I've only been tantalized by bits and pieces I've heard here and there. Have you fead Fritjov Capra?

[stuntpickle]

Gotcha, is there a specific text you could/would recommend which translates his findings? How would I get a hold of his letters? Are they collected in a single book?

In searching my bookshelf for what I had in mind I discovered that what I called "letters" was a collection of material derived from numerous sources.

http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Journey-From-G%C3%B6del-Philosophy/dp/0262231891/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332880727&sr=1-1

That's a good place to start for a good picture of the man and some of his more philosophical ideas. Of course, if you have a background in symbolic logic you could probably try something more focused on his actual work in logic, but be warned it is difficult.






Do you mean dismayed figuratively in that it is hard to understand, or dismayed emotionally?

I meant hard to understand, but still alarming and perhaps uncomfortable in what it reveals. Even in simplified texts, you'll run into stuff like the following: if (Q)φ is ∀x0∃x1ψ(x0, x1). And unless you have a good grasp of symbolic logic, it can be a frustrating experience. I'm not saying you're too stupid or anything, but I don't know you or your background, so I'm just trying to steer you to something that might not scare you off.




I honestly don't know enough about it to say much else on the subject, I've only been tantalized by bits and pieces I've heard here and there. Have you fead Fritjov Capra?

No, I'm not familiar with him.

[Varenne Rodin]

I am very vaguely familiar with this view, I will add him to my amazon :). I do have a book entitled Godel, Escher, Bach, which I have not had time to read.

I've also been somewhat enchanted by the ideas associated with Gaia theory, you know the position that there may be higher levels of knowing or consciousness or interesting emergent properties that arise at higher levels of organization like societies, ecosystems, planetary systems ect.



I haven't suggested that religion or atheism makes people good or bad. I just thought the "99% of inmates are Christian" was little misleading/simplistic, and the link brought up some interesting areas of complication.



I feel like you have really imputed me with a series of claims that I've never made.



While many christians do see secular people as evil many also see them as misguided or mistaken. I imagine seeing them as evil makes it easier emotionally to justify certain behaviors among other things. It's also a broader phenomenon of the "us vs them" mentality. In some ways I think its like asking why do Red Sox fans hate Yankee fans.



This may well be true, but the burden of proof was on you to verify the statistic you propounded. Instead I cited a source with differing numbers, which you have asserted are false, misinterpreted, and incomplete. But you haven't provided me with any reasons as to how they are so, nor have you provided me with a source for your initial statistic, which is all that I was really asking for.

I did provide a source. College. I directed you to Google. You came up with what you came up with. I think you misunderstood some things I said as being personally directed at you. I didn't "impute" you.

Simplistic? Maybe because the numbers are simple to understand.

I didn't want to have to exhaust myself in another whacko debate with an angry, stubborn lunatic but, luckily, there aren't any of those around. I'll just get right to checkmate now, shall I?

I have a better source for you (many sources in fact, as lots of correctional institutions aided in study and statistics over more than two generations). In "The New Criminology", Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10 of 1%.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

This one is a Canadian statistic from Steiner and Swancara, but I'll toss it into the mix for funzies. They surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian. Any atheists in Canadian prisons? Nope! Where are the atheist criminals hiding? Come on out, you silly godless maniacs.

Maybe they're in Massachusetts? Uh oh. No dice. Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate religious. 100%. Pardon me, I've become simplistic again in my simple, addlepated brains. We need MORE numbers! Statistics on TOP of statistics.

In Joliet, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and 0 non-religious. 1% secular is sounding less and less ridiculous, hey? I can tell there are still readers who are unconvinced (esp is one of my demon hell powers), so let's press on!

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in their state population. But in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 total inmates with 855 of them Catholics (over half), 518 Protestants, 177 Jews and 8 non-religious. 8. Wow. Non-religious evil doers are running rampant in Michigan!

Steiner surveyed 27 states, and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference, and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more complete survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 non-denom religious, and only 3 Agnostics. 131 Pagans in 27 states? Whoa. Look out, America!

In a newer 29-state survey, Steiner found 15 unbelievers, Spirtualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. Calling all 15 "anti-christians" made it one half person to each state. Elmira reformatory overshadowed all, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half), and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.

If there are any litnetters reading this post who still feel that I haven't sufficiently argued my case against godlessness leading to a strong desire to commit crimes and acts of evil, I cordially invite said litnetters to never ever speak words to me.

Love and kisses,

Princess Satan

[stuntpickle]

I did provide a source. College.

I bet that one looks good on a bibliography. Page number?

[Varenne Rodin]

I bet that one looks good on a bibliography. Page number?

Stuntpickle, I simply didn't care enough to expound. I have now, and quite a lot. Here's an idea, imprison all atheists. Then I'm sure most of us will convert under the pressure from other inmates to convert. Execute the handful who stay atheists. That's not so many. I'm sure God will be forgiving. We're not really human, after all. We possess no compassion, we have no souls. After that, there will be no more atheists left to hurt your zealot nation's feelers on message boards. No more crime either, obviously. People with gods don't do crimes. God bless god, amen.

[stuntpickle]

Stuntpickle, I simply didn't care enough to expound. I have now, and quite a lot. Here's an idea, imprison all atheists. Then I'm sure most of us will convert under the pressure from other inmates to convert. Execute the handful who stay atheists. That's not so many. I'm sure God will be forgiving. We're not really human, after all. We possess no compassion, we have no souls. After that, there will be no more atheists left to hurt your zealot nation's feelers on message boards. No more crime either, obviously. People with gods don't do crimes. God bless god, amen.

I care nothing about this absurd argument you're engaged in. I just found it humorous that you thought "college" was a reasonable source to cite.

[Darcy88]

In Texas everything's big, even venom glands, evidently.

[Varenne Rodin]

I care nothing about this absurd argument you're engaged in. I just found it humorous that you thought "college" was a reasonable source to cite.

I find it humorous that you think we're all sitting around here writing AMA style term papers. It's a chat site. It's easy-peasy, dollface. You have your style, I have mine. Mine is to put in effort when I feel like it. Nothing more, nothing less. If that causes you bunches of "humorous" fun, terrific! :D

[Darcy88]

Stuntpickle, I simply didn't care enough to expound. I have now, and quite a lot. Here's an idea, imprison all atheists. Then I'm sure most of us will convert under the pressure from other inmates to convert. Execute the handful who stay atheists. That's not so many. I'm sure God will be forgiving. We're not really human, after all. We possess no compassion, we have no souls. After that, there will be no more atheists left to hurt your zealot nation's feelers on message boards. No more crime either, obviously. People with gods don't do crimes. God bless god, amen.

Sound program you've laid out. We gotta get on this. I am at your disposal. Where shall we start?

:angel:

[stuntpickle]

I find it humorous that you think we're all sitting around here writing AMA style term papers. It's a chat site. It's easy-peasy, dollface. You have your style, I have mine. Mine is to put in effort when I feel like it. Nothing more, nothing less. If that causes you bunches of "humorous" fun, terrific! :D

The reason one provides a source is so that others can check it.

BTW, you're a poo poo-head . Source: elementary school.

[Varenne Rodin]

The reason one provides a source is so that others can check it.

BTW, you're a poo poo-head . Source: elementary school.

I don't even believe you're serious with this. There are many sources. Start with "Introduction to Law Enforcement" by Ortmeier if you're genuinely interested.

[Varenne Rodin]

Sound program you've laid out. We gotta get on this. I am at your disposal. Where shall we start?

:angel:

Haha. You're so refreshing, Darcy. :)

[stuntpickle]

I don't even believe you're serious with this. There are many sources. Start with "Introduction to Law Enforcement" by Ortmeier if you're genuinely interested.

Look, V, I'm really not interested in either side of your argument since I think both wrongly assume that the prison population adequately represents the community of persons making ethical transgressions. Consider that the majority of inmates are in prison for drug related offenses and that the prison system is an increasingly private industry exploiting prison labor for profit. I suspect that if anyone seriously pursued the argument you're having, all they'd find is a correlation between class/religious belief and class/imprisonment.

The comment about the source wasn't an attack on your person. I just thought it was funny.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, I don't disagree with you. Thanks. :)

[Rores28]

Look, V, I'm really not interested in either side of your argument since I think both wrongly assume that the prison population adequately represents the community of persons making ethical transgressions.

I didn't make this assumption, I didn't even really think we were having an argument.

Thanks for all the sources Varenne.

[Varenne Rodin]

I didn't make this assumption, I didn't even really think we were having an argument.

Thanks for all the sources Varenne.

You're welcome, Rores, and thank you.

I like your Animal Farm avatar. :)

[Darcy88]

Haha. You're so refreshing, Darcy. :)

Thanks, you are too, really.

Its actually odd to hear people argue that religion makes people behave better.
Some great theologian whose name escapes me now said something to the effect of "religion makes good people better and bad people worse." I tend to agree, in most instances.

There are bad atheists and bad Christians. Immorality is not an exclusively atheist phenomena. Its a general human tendency. Like I said earlier - look at the Greeks and their gods. They had morality despite their amoral/immoral gods.

[blazeofglory]

God is needed in order that we can feel immortal since if God is immortal his creation is immortal and every part and piece and every substance is immortal.

I do not believe in the Christian God or any other forms of God which are mythical constructs.

The universe is a mystery and will remain so no matter how far we advance scientifically and every being here is a mystery. Of course science has gone far to demystify some of the great secrets that remained undisclosed to us for millenniums, yet there are some other aspects of creations that never can be answered.

One simple question: why this world is here? Why are we here?

We all are speaking scientifically purely physical beings and there is no soul and every part of our feelings has to do with neuro-chemicals. Our love, emotions, consciousness, feelings happen in our brains and there are distinct places in them that function differently. Our imaginativeness, creativity too has to do with our cerebral states. But despite all these scientific findings I still hod the idea that there is something we have yet to understand. There is unity and all beings have been subtly connected and this invisible connection makes me believe that death is not the end of of life and there is Godliness or omnipresence of something. You can say it is God or cosmic energy.

[Duikboot]

TOPIC STARTER. So, the only reason you do not kill is because you fear judgement day, the sword of Allah? The word "Attrition": Repentance for sin motivated by fear of punishment rather than by love of God. Think about it..in every holy book, be it koran, bible, talmud, vedas, there are schizophrenic advises about either attacking your enemy or try living with him. Why not try living with your enemy? Allah gives both options, why not try the most human? Btw, an enemy is only an enemy when the ally is not your ally. The entire Eschatology of the Islam proves to be the problem. It promises at least 70 female "virgins" to teen suicide-bombers in their hereafter. What horny teenager boy, regardless of his religion, would not fall for that trap? It shows that the people who convince those young kids of perpetrating such a "divine" act, most of the time live to be 80+ who marry 70 virgin 14 year old girls on earth, and not in paradise. There is no paradise dear mister Muslim.... this is it...."Gibs auf, Gibs Auf!!!

Religious people accusing atheist of having no sense of moral...while this individual muslim claims (admits) he would kill like Mickey and Mallory if (the love, or whatever) Allah did not constrain him.

This is exactly the reversed, arrogant flawed logic of religious people, afflicted upon us non-religious people.
In a civilized community you just do not kill....you leave the killing to your god, or to your government (the latter is a sign of civilization too some say in the U.S.A) I really honestly wonder how many jewish judges in America condemn moslims to the gas chamber. That is when they did not already die prior blowing up innocent kids.


It is exactly the North African muslim attitude of theft: "no one was near the car, so I took the car, i did not steal it.....if someone owned it, he would be in the car." This is the moral of the islam in North Africa. Let alone in the united arab emirates.


Did you know that former brotherly clans, like the jews and the arabs (yes, they are related to each other brotherly) both have big noses, dislike pork and their females grow mustaches? That they both dislike pork has nothing to do with Allah....It was merely a hygienic precaution since pig meat tends to spoil fast in warm, humid climates. Did you also know that when a group of related people split, they become their own worst enemies? "This fact can be proved by means of the sense of hearing"


Some say "jew bastard" and hear "israel be gone" and some yell "Zion is the lion, which tears apart my Syrian scapegoat like an SS officer in Bergen-Belsen."