Also a poll that will be put to later use.

(Just as a note, I'm not putting a poll up about reasons for believing in God. Given that only 1 person listed themselves as a theist in the other forum I didn't think it is worthwhile, but I'm truly not trying to alienate anyone by this omission).

Again, feel free to elaborate on your response.

Results (total votes = 15):

God is unknowable.	0 / 0.0%
It is absurd to believe in God.	3 / 20.0%
There is no need to believe in God.	4 / 26.7%
There is no proof for God's existance.	8 / 53.3%
Science provides all the answers we need.	0 / 0.0%

I answers that there is no proof or even evidence. This doesn't mean that I deny the possibility of a deity.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

I do believe in God. I believe there is tons of evidence for Him.

I did not realize the theme of this board when I clicked on it. I was just looking for a board to discuss books.

If you still want me around I can put my two cents in.

ShanDB

We would love for you to stick around and discuss this with us. The problem is very few believers ever stick around to handle the responses we provide. If you would like to have an interactive discussion please make a post. If you would like to preach....then we have heard it all before. Please trust me. We have heard it before.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

I agree with Chris in that there is no proof or evidence. I also feel that there is no need for me to believe in God since science adequately explains many phenomenon attributed to God. Therefore, I agree with the last three options. In the end, I decided to vote for no proof.

I don't see any particular reason to believe in a God (or at least I don't have whatever psychology makes a person feel the need for one) but I don't see anything wrong with believing a god might exist. There's no way to disprove it, even if it's "obviously mythological" like Zeus or Osiris.

My main objection to some strains of monotheism is that they attribute humanoid emotions such as the desire to be worshipped, the desire to reward and punish (God's methods are simply not logical, given modern understanding of how human brains work and the reward/punishment methods that actually WORK) and the insane idea that a God has no way to save mankind than to sacrifice his own child, or flood the earth, or destroy 1/3 of all life on the planet (Revelation) just to make a point about his own supremacy. That's all human thinking, any god worthy of my trust would have to be above it.

Michael

Cause there is not enough evidence for a supernatural god and that is usually the extablised criteria for God.

the trouble seems to be that if one look at teh functional behavior it is the God within that the believer act upon but attribute this God within to be the inner felt presence of the God out there beyond.

If you tell them that God more likely only exists within they see you as an atheist. If you tell an atheist that God only exists within the believer then he or she look very uninterested and say somthing like. Yes I know this already, what si the point telling me. God is an individual illusion or collective delusion. Yes I thought soo too but what if God really do exists within the believer but are projected to be the Creator God. A false faith but based on a real felt experience. Similar to our old notion that we had a separate Self when we now find it more likely that the self is a functional illusion and what if God is exactly the same kind of illusion. Not as a supernatural possession but as an emergent phenomena. Having social power due to the power to motivate peopel to act according to their interpretation of God's will in their life.

I got inspired to this view after page 11 in the book we talk about.

the problem seems to be that none want these kind of interpretatiosn even if they have some explanational merit in them.

the Theists want God to be a Creator God so they feel safe about the promise of an AfterLife.

the Atheists want God to be debunkable and a God within would not be debunkable cause you could probably proove such a God in the same way as any mental phenomena.

Unless God is as subjective as Qualia. Are such things as experienced seeing green or red measurable or only indirectly refered to as a subjective feeling? Maybe God is hidden within us in the same way as Subjective colour experience and such? Only real as a motivational "seeing as". We hit the breaks seeng a Red sign saying Stop! And accelerate when seeing the Green for Go! but socially such an inner God has political power when it comes to voting on legislating social behavior.

So to say it is an illusion gives the wrong impression. Socially constructed motivational tradition being emboded?

Placing God incarnated in the believers body would be fruitful cause it would give us a say in how god get interpreted. We would be able to be more rational and reasonable and realistic about the claims in God's name. A kind of inner revolution of the religious tradition. But few seems to be willing to go that route.

Why is that soo?

Bernt

God beliefs are superstitions. They are beliefs unreasoningly held by faith in magic or dogma.

History shows that gods come and go. Why would the current offering of gods be any different?

God beliefs separate us into incompatible warring cults.

I don't consider myself preachy. Just interested in honest discussion. I'll just state what I believe and why and let you do the same. I'm sure it will be interesting.

I think I replied to the wrong post. Sorry, kinda new at this.

Anyway, bit overwhelmed and have a lot to respond to . . .

Michael

Quote:

---

My main objection to some strains of monotheism is that they attribute humanoid emotions such as the desire to be worshipped, the desire to reward and punish (God's methods are simply not logical, given modern understanding of how human brains work and the reward/punishment methods that actually WORK) and the insane idea that a God has no way to save mankind than to sacrifice his own child, or flood the earth, or destroy 1/3 of all life on the planet (Revelation) just to make a point about his own supremacy. That's all human thinking, any god worthy of my trust would have to be above it.

---

Again, I have never heard anyone approach this subject from such an angle, but I liked everything you said in the above paragraph.

Who made the rule that God has to kill his own son in order for the sins of man to be forgiven? God makes the rules right? Why didn't God just forgive them himself? Why kill his innocent son? How barbaric. Makes zero sense at all.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

Although I am certainly not a climatologist, or any other kind of scientist for that matter, I think there is enough evidence to support the fact that global warming is a real and present danger. See attached www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ as an example.

I have no concerns with normal processes of evolution due to climate change, but what is happening now is man-made and is expected to occur in years, not decades--faster than species can adapt. We already have Los Angeles type marine life in our northwest tidal pools and some tiypes of northwest marine life disappearing altogether.

I am not afraid for man who is adaptable. I am afraid for polar bears and penguins.

~

Laura

You know, Chris, it is not just the environmentalists which are raising red flags about global warming. The Pentagon, not exactly known as advocates of the environment, are worried about global warming because countries who will loose access to natural resources as a result of drastic climate changes may come looking to the US for those resources. See www.fortune.com/fortune/t...84,00.html

Hestiasmissives

The few questions you asked bijnke really has had my mind racing. I ran a search and came up with a book published in 1996 by Richard Leakey that seems to be quite relevant, and then I found a Ch. from the book available for free online. If you have an interest you might enjoy reading Ch. 13 of Richard Leakey's "The Sixth Extinction." I'm not sure if Global Warming is covered in this text, but he sure gets into how Homo sapiens is rapidly destroying the biosphere of our planet.

That chapter was so good I was about to place it on our Book Suggestions forum as a nomination for our May & June 2004 book poll. But after visiting Amazon.com I found a more up to date book, by Edward Wilson, that seems to be just as worthy of our attention. I've added Wilson's, "The Future of Life" to the nomination thread and hope some of you spend a few minutes and consider this topic important enough to investigate further.

As far as global warming is concerned, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion either. I'm just happy we're discussing the subject, because so often issues like this are ignored or swept under the carpet by the general public. Global warming could very well be a serious threat to our planet, and if it is I have a sneaking suspicion that our species will suffer dearly if it is not addressed. We may be resilient, but we are not superheros. If we destroy the biosphere we will destroy ourselves. I'd like to read a book on this subject and have either Leaky or Wilson do a private chat with us here at BookTalk.

Chris

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

I think that it is quite possible
that the planet will defend itself.
Goodbye, Homo thingys ?