Explaining God to an Atheist
85God is a mean kid sitting on an anthill with a magnifying glass, and I'm the ant. He could fix my life in five minutes if He wanted to, but He'd rather burn off my feelers and watch me squirm.
Who is an Atheist?
I grew up with an Atheist father and a Christian mother. You could say I've had fair exposure to both ways of thought. Convincing an Atheist God exists isn't the goal here, but offering abundant explanations, perspectives, and logic is something I want to discuss.
I possess both a logical and spiritual side within me, and you may find it interesting how both happily co-exist.The fact most Atheists I meet are seeking answers, is great. Seek and you shall find. I found all of this within me to write because of two fellow writers/hubbers in particular, eatfiftyeggs(Atheist) and themanwithnopants (Christian), inspiring this ongoing conversation, which made me examine the topic further. Might I add, it was intelligent respectful conversation.
This is predominately for Atheists, but religious an non-religious are welcome. Agnostics may also find valuable insight as well. I carefully took into account who I am writing this for, meaning I must know who an Atheist is to approach this subject matter with an ounce of credibility- and I do- like I said, I was raised by one. I've lived in a world between intelligence (actually, "genius" in my father's case) and faith (blind faith in my mother's case). I fell short of reaching the full potential on either side. Thank God!
For future reference, I will apply the term "Atheist" to non-believers and "Believers" to those who believe in any God or religion. I think that's a fair way to simplify one aspect of this complex topic.
An Atheist: Here is what I personally know about an Atheist:They are deeply disturbed by suffering in the world, leading to oversensitivity, but more likely, desensitization and avoidance or loss of affect. They've been hurt or witnessed pain and begin to identify with stability and constants, like knowledge, science, and intelligence. Atheists are experts on religion and since I'm not, I hope this argument is refreshing. Only believing what you read and can prove by scientific method is one-dimensional. We all must know the world extends beyond what is logical. If someone were to give them the definitive proof of God today, they would convert. In essence, their lack of belief is hanging on by a thread, by a will to believe or discovery of proof.
A Believer: If you are not an Atheist reading this, you may be a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or even someone like myself who's had personal, spiritual experiences enough to convince me of believing in God. Yes, I believe in God, BUT I don't believe one must go to church to be with or experience God. Just from this statement alone, I've often been banished from wearing the title, Christian. In other words, I write this from a very non-partial point of view, with hopefully as much tact and respect for both sides as possible.
Math and Science. Any Questions?
God puts all your (Atheists) equations out of whack so exclude him entirely from the equation and things start to make sense. A logical Atheist equation, for example, is since pain and suffering exist, a good and loving God does not. Let me explain this logic.
My background in science and research (psychology), easily asists me in explaining why simple equations do not exist. One plus one equals two, and it ALWAYS does, UNLESS there is another variable. Perhaps you ran an experiment and it didn't turn out as calculated. One plus one did not equal two in this situation because something effected the outcome, an extraneous variable. If unknown variables occur in science, then they can exist in other areas as well. God could possibly be a variable in our lives whether you believe in him or not.
When an outcome isn't as planned, scientists may not know what the extraneous variable is, but they know one exists. The fact the outcome was skewed is proof something unexplained exists.
Don't put your faith in man and what you see with your eyes. Studying psychology has taught me how deceptive our perception is. Under Google Videos, try googling "Change blindness" or "psychology perception studies". There is so much we are unaware of and the output of our puny little brains should not be the finite source of answers. Feelings, emotions, and intuition are more reliable than perception itself.
In fact, God should be interpreted through feelings because they are more reliable than actual reality. For example, people who have narrowly avoided tragedies or attacks will state they had a feeling something wasn't right or something was going to happen and they reacted in a way that saved their life. There was no present real danger when they had this feeling, but they had saved themselves when there was real danger, by reacting to and trusting a feeling. Logic would have shown them no danger, but feelings saved their lives.
Pain, suffering, evil, bad, icky stuff
Why would God allow suffering? I'm sure you've heard the parent/child argument before. I completely relate. As a parent, I indulge my very young daughter exposure to the outside world. Perhaps a playground in which she may have fun or scrape her knee. If she gets hurt, I was the one who put her in that harmful situation. If I put ointment on her scraped knee, I am the one to cause her additional pain, yet both scenarios are for her benefit, and she has no concept of it. She doesn't understand because it's beyond her level of understanding. Yes, the real world is different than a playground, but the playground is as large as the whole world compared to how little of a child's brain has developed and exposed to so far.
As our brains develop, we are ready for a larger world, but our brains are never entirely developed and sadly, not even close to full potential even as adults, so we may not have the capacity to prove God's existence or awareness of a larger world beyond us. Just because our world is large, doesn't mean that's it folks.
For Atheists, free will and suffering is a more believable equation. God gave us free will because he wants us to appreciate the good, therefore lets bad exist for the good to shine through. For example, if you put a diamond against a white cloth, you will only see a small percentage of it's facets- nothing special, Now put the diamond on a black cloth, isn't the contrast gorgeous? Don't you truly appreciate all it's facets, how sparkly it is? You can't appreciate good without bad.
Disease came and spread from man's free will. We have to pay for it and the only difference is we/U.S has more resources to deal with it than other countries. They should not suffer, as a whole, but it is all consequences. On all levels, we pay for what our ancestors did, wherever free will led them. On a smaller scale, we pay for what our parents pass down to us. Perhaps God doesn't view death as bad and all suffering will end in a better life hereafter. If this is it, as Atheists believe, then why do some people not get a "fair" chance and suffer needlessly? What logical order or reasoning explains that? If this isn't it, then the suffering here is only momentary.
One more thought on pain and suffering; Buddhists, for example, believe suffering is just another state of being.To say there is suffering versus well being, you have just labeled it. It's only YOUR perception and attitude. We label things as "good" or "bad"- when they just "are". Who told you suffering was bad? It doesn't feel good? How do you know what good is? Even things that may feel painful are not bad for us. We may get a vaccination shot that hurt, but it's not "bad".
The Problem With Free Will
Can God intervene? Depends on if you believe He knows and has a plan for each of us. If He intervenes, then there is no free will. However, He gave us free will to believe in Him and pray to Him, therefore He can answer accordingly. Free will is tough to explain and similar to freedom in the U.S. Yes we are "free", but we're not really. We are just free to make choices, however, there are boundaries and laws in place.
God is not a psychic, pulling strings in case His palm readings were a little off nor is he an ant bully. His ultimate plan is the circle of life- no life and no death shall be wasted. Perhaps that's the only purpose, the only plan. Renewal, heaven, and/or another life. The after life is better than this life, therefore death does not mean the same to God as it does to us. How do we know death is bad? .
What about babies who die without the option of free will?A baby will die at one day old because mom chose to take drugs or in another scenario mom did everything right and still the baby dies, but she goes on to raise research money and awareness, contributing to a greater purpose. If you take the scientific, Atheist version of this last scenario, how do you explain, scientifically, how or why a baby dies if mom did everything right. If you conclude, she must have done SOMETHING wrong, then we're back to free will; she did something that effected her baby.
Everything happens for a reason is not a notion solely for believers. Other people believe this mentality as well through Karma or similar. Miracles happen without God, but because of God. Bruce Almighty was a comedy movie in 2003. Funny example I will use jsut to break up the seriousness here. God says to Bruce, "Parting your soup (like the sea) is not a miracle Bruce, it's a magic trick. A single mom who's working two jobs, and still finds time to take her son to soccer practice, that's a miracle. A teenager who says "no" to drugs and "yes" to an education, that's a miracle. People want me to do everything for them. What they don't realize is *they* have the power. You want to see a miracle, son? Be the miracle." If you also remember in this movie, Bruce did what every Atheist would do, he granted everybody's prayers to make things fair and good, but it led to destructive chaos instead.
Not the typical view of God
 | Amazon Price: $2.84 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.50 List Price: $12.98 |
Why Atheists can't believe in God
Simply put, they struggle over the "belief" aspect. It seems belief comes out of thin air. A combination of unanswered questions and no physical proof make it impossible for Atheists to believe in God. Let me compare belief to love. We can't see it, we have infinite questions about it, and it's highly subjective.
At one point, you had to believe in love before you could find it or experience it for yourself. If you did not believe in love, you would not be open to it, therefore never finding out what it was like and continuing to proclaim, it does not exist. Love is irrational, but it would be hard to argue it didn't exist. How would you know love exists when hard data supports 50-75% of relationships end in a split or divorce?
I would also say Atheists are like the one person in the crowd at a comedy show that doesn't "get" the show-stopping joke. They pick God apart literally, try to reason with it, mull it over and dissect it until it's dead, but in the end if you don't get it, you don't get it. Finding a joke funny has a lot to do with personal experiences, feelings and open mindedness. The more someone else has to explain the joke or God, the more meaningless it becomes.
The take home point: God is personal. You will not "find" Him in a book, in someone else's words,a Hub forum, scientific evidence, or logical reasoning. Belief and faith rely on us not knowing the answer, but belief must come before God, not the other way around.
Suggested Reading
- Atheism, God, Free Will, and Other Boring Stuff
(This hub is a response to izettl's hub, "Explaining God to an Atheist," and is structured like a response. It sort of stands on its own, but reading that hub will definitely make this one more intelligible... - Reasons Why People Quit Church
Church isn't for everyone, even those of us with a pure heart, decent morale, and good intentions. There is another place where some belong, under the title 'Spiritual, but not religious'. That term was... - Theists and Non-Theists: Objectively viewed from somewhere in between.
Everyone, from childhood through death, is inclined to think it is their way that is best. Non-theist and theist are both likely, at some point
vote upvote downsharePrintflag
- Useful (7)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (6)
- Beautiful (5)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Brilliant reasoning, Izetti! To try and convince anybody that your believe(s) is the ONLY gateway to heaven, whatever and wherever this state of living may be, is ridiculous. It’s like telling a yoga-fanatic that he should not stand on his head for an hour per day, while he is experiencing heaven on earth in that position. I truly believe we should stop talking and preaching and just LIVE this wonderful life with all its fortunes and misfortunes. Our actions should testify our faith (in whatever), and those who are lost and without faith and hope have the right to choose who they want to follow and who not. I’m sooooo fed-up with the constant arguments in hubpages’s forums about this issue. Those debaters are wasting their precious time and intellect. I loved your debate/statements/views because it is the same as mine. LOL! Great hub! You are extremely wise (for your age). I just love you!
With our limited "intelligence",I think it would be more productive if we try to comprehend "God" with our feelings instead.
I'm a Buddhist. I don't believe in the Christian interpretation of God but I do believe there is an order to the universe and that there is meaning in everything. There's more to the world than what we see.
Robwrite~ Yes, I put some Buddhist thought into this hub as well, explaining suffering. I have read many Buddhist books and believe everyone can learn from them, especially about suffering. There is important lessons there for Atheists.Personally I practice a lot of Buddhist principls, but believe in a more Christian version of God. I put being a good person ahead of going to church to make it look like I'm a good person.lol.
Silentreed~ Great point and that's why I bring up we only use a small percentage of our brain which means we are robably capable of more if use our feelings too.
Martie~ I didn't want this to be as "convincing" as just "informative". One thing about Atheists, is they love information. I completely understand why people believe in a God or not. Believers believe in spite of still having questions and Atheists don't believe because they still have questions. What I would like to convince them, if this is a debate, is if believers are not right, then neither are Atheists. Thanks for stopping by Martie.I've never tried debating the topic, but a recent conversation did spark this, thankfully it was a very decent debate.
medkh9~ thank you so much for a wonderful comment. What a way to start out the comment section- thanks!
This is a well-thought out argument, and I appreciate the beauty with which you can convey some of your ideas.
Sometimes it's difficult to be in the position of disagreeing with such nicely written points of view - I just can't do it without looking like the bad guy, and I hate being the bad guy. But honestly, I'm still in the position of disagreeing with you.
I think that since you've touched on such a wide variety of topics, each one of which is complex enough to be expanded to be its own hub, I think the best way for me to respond is with a hub of my own, responding to yours. I'll start working on it today, but it might be a while before I get it finished - hopefully, I'll have a response for you sometime this week.
One quick point - you said that definitive proof was all it would take to convince an atheist and that therefore, lack of belief was "hanging by a thread." I'd say that in all of known human history, that definitive proof has yet to be found, and so if lack of belief is hanging by a thread, it is a remarkably durable one. That's got to count for one or two reliability points, doesn't it?
I'd also like anyone who thinks that there has been proof of God, and that atheists just haven't accepted the proof, to imagine themselves in a similar position: what would it take to convince you that a god different from your own was the real god? What evidence would you require to abandon the God of Christianity (for example, but substitute your own beliefs if you are not a Christian) for the gods of Hinduism, or the spirit/ ancestor worship of Shinto, or Zeus, or Odin? Like the story of Christ walking among humans, many other religions have their own accounts of gods and prophets walking among them - do you find them convincing enough to convert? Many other people have felt their god's presence in their hearts and seen his (or her, or "other") work in their lives - is that convincing enough to make you convert?
What evidence have you presented to non-believers of your own God that is strong enough that if presented to you regarding some other god, would have been sufficient to cause your conversion?
I'd argue that our "thread of doubt" is as strong as the thread of doubt that believers have about every other god and religion except their own.
Sorry to be the bad guy. I still really enjoyed your hub - I admire your writing style very much.
eatfiftyeggs~ you're not the bad guy. Very seldom do I see a differing viewpoint as bad. In fact, it's awesome because of you and tmwnp, I thought about this topic for a few days. It's good to think- that is how great thinkers have learned so much from each other or people who challenged them.
I am certainly not wanting to convince an Atheist of a particular God- you see ,for me, God is personal as I mentioned before and I am not entirely convinced of the Jesus and other Gods who have walked among us. That would tell you I am not entirely "Christian".
My point to you in particular about hanging on by a thread is that you are relying on "man" to give you that proof when I discussed in the hub man only uses 8-12% of his brain. I think themanwithnopants said it well when he stated he is a business man and hedges his bets. I put it like a gamble- do you gamble on something that only uses 8-12% of it's resources? The thread of doubt is only as strong as man, and well, man has been known to make some mistakes.
I guess I see God as all-encompassing, and I have read several accounts on various religions. I believe in the commonalities and I guess that's the logical side of me. Christianity, or any one religion, has too many inconsistencies, part of which comes from man- the same "man" you are relying on for your proof. Man is not reliable in either case- the case against God or for God. I guess I prefer not to put a "cap" on the possibilities beyond what we know. I think it stunts our growth (at 6 feet tall I am not stunted- lol).
Great discussion and I really hope you write something on this topic. I read your other hubs and you also have a great writing style.
I've posted the hub. It's way too long. Sorry, I get carried away. Still, it's there if you're interested.
WOW! You didn't write this in 5 minutes. What a tremendous hub thought provoking and in most respects hit the nail on the head. I love your definitions of Atheist and Believers. This is something educational and worthwhile reading for everyone. Thanks for your hard work and efforts.
Good job Laura, I have some thoughts for both you and eatfiftyeggs, but we're loading up a moving truck, and tow car pullers. We'll have the Houston house emptyied and headed to Tucson sometime today or early tommorrow morning. I'm getting ready to box up my computer, and may be down a week. So keep this subject hot. I've got some good stuff for ya!
jim
I have had several encounters with athiests on hubpages. I wanted to explore what caused their unbelief and why they held so tightly to it. I wanted to hear the most rational reasoning behind it. I found 2 men in the same circle of hub friends and they are brilliant people. Their "definitive" proof of no God came down to what they referred to as a lack of objective evidence. They reasoned that for something to exist, it must meet 2 requirements. It must have location and shape. This was their equation, location + shape = exist. Everything else is subjective they reasoned. Experiential evidence held no credibility. For my side of the debate I argued that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any matter to exist. If they are using location and shape as the only credible evidence for their position I asked them where did matter come from. They said it always existed. They said matter can never be destroyed, it can only change form. How we reason with Athiests depends on how strongly they hold their unbelief and their level of intelligence. These 2 were willing to debate on any grounds that were not subjective. Once metaphysics entered the debate, the door was closed. This subject matter cuts to the core of the human condition. Can either side PROVE their case? I think the answer is no. That's why we call it belief. You did a great job in wording the case for faith! Voted up and awesome!
I've never debated the issue with anyone. If someone doesn't believe I say; "cool" and drop the issue. This is because they want/need reassurance. They want to hear the same old arguments and make the same old responses so as to reaffirm their 'stance'. Why give it to them?
must65gt~ thanks fo the excellent comment. It was the fist time I really got it all out in words and then I look at it at it now and think, well, I could've covered more but I didn't want to write a book.
tmwnp~ hurry back...
geyler~ This is my first time "debating" and what I got from it was more confirmation in my position and beliefs, which isn't all bad and perhaps the Atheists get the same confirmation on their stance, as you you said. I found it helped to verbalize what I believe though. But, yes, people believe what they will believe, but the absence of faith hangs on by a thread. What I didn't put in the hub was in another comment section about how one experience changed me- that one experience is all it took to convince me and any Atheist is in the same position as I was, hanging on by a thread.
Thanks fred allen~ YEs, there is no proof of love, as I explained in the hub, but we know it's there. It's strong, we've gone to war for it. Power is another example, we fight every day for power, control of something. Power and love influence almost everything we do and we can't see either or touch either, only experience them. God is personal, and I have experienced him, but you can't explain your love for your kids any more than your own experience, but it is so real, more real than the computer keyboard I am touching right now. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
There is a unified force that governs every thing in this world, including human beings. Just as the law of "All actions have an equal opposite reaction" in physics or the law of gravitational attraction or electromagnetic forces are universal, this law (hitherto undiscovered in science) is also universal. It manifests in many forms, including the law of Karma -- what you sow so shall you reap.
Religious sects wants to see this universal force in different human shapes -- depending upon the description in their scriptures. Others who meditate, particularly the pure mindfulness style, and purify their minds see the manifestation of this force as a reality -- moment-by-moment. They don't need to call themselves theists or atheists; they don't have to believe or disbelieve in any theory. To them everything tangible reveals itself, provided they don't get lost chasing experiences, and stay mindfully in the present moment.
It is not very clear if there is a creator who created human beings in its own form, but looking at various religious sects one can certainly say that humans have created God-figures as per their own beliefs and preferences.
Good Hub. Thank you.
I am not an atheist (as far as that term is used nowadays), but I am a secularist, so I will wade in here, if I may be so bold. This hub certainly has some interesting ideas.
"God is a variable in our lives... Atheists, want to only deal with things that equal one plus one, and ignore extra variables."
I do not ignore the variable, I am just waiting for the variable to be proven to equal God.
To attribute something that one does not fully understand to God, is known as the fallacy of "the God of the gaps." Originally, god and gods were intended to explain things humans did not understand. As we have filled in those gaps, God has become smaller.
"Don't put your faith in man and what you see with your eyes."
Absolutely true. We all seek impersonal truth--truths and facts that are not tied to one individual person. To provide this impersonal truth, the theists offer a "God", which is really nothing more than putting faith in another man--another man’s conception of God, or in myself and what God means to me.
"You use about 8-12% of your total brain so are you willing to bet the other 90% does not contain an awareness of God? Good luck!"
Are you willing to bet the other 90% DOES contain an awareness of God? And if so, why? Why not bet that it contains an awareness of ghosts, or aliens? Good luck indeed.
On love: even if I have never experienced it, I can see the evidence of love in spades, in daily experience, brain scans, biology, anthropology, neurology, as well as good old logic. By contrast, where is the evidence and the logic for God?
"Questions are good, the difference is Believers go to God for unanswered questions and Atheists go to man for theirs."
There is a difference between man's emotion and man's reason. There is also a difference between "a man" and "men." What one man creates is very different from what men create together. Moreover, one man's emotion produces very different explanations than many men's logic and reason.
This is what science is all about, and why it works so well, and why it has built our civilization. Millions of individuals applying their reason as best they can, for the sake of knowledge and the truth--despite many setbacks and mistakes, this process overall has produced magnificent results, and has utterly transformed humanity and humanity's understanding of the world.
By contrast, the system that turned to God for answers saw humanity languish for centuries and millennia in ignorance, uncertainty, fear and backwardness. You mentioned gambling. Based on history alone, I know where I'll put my money.
Hi,
interesting post especially around the characterisation of Atheists however rather than comment on any of the points directly i merely wished to raise a question about the 8-9% of the brain thing.
I was, and still am, under the impression that this is a widespread myth based on misunderstanding of modern research. specifically the studies of brain function linked to certain tasks, e.g moving your arms will cause 30% of your brain to raise activity levels but over the course of a day 100% of the brain will be used.
similarly the way that, whilst sat at my desk typing, I use 30% of my body (arms, eyes, etc) but across the course of the day i will use the remainder.
just thought i would bring it up, sorry it is a little badly written out as i've no time to proof.
The subject would take a book to fully cover–and already has, many times. I found the reasoning here a bit of a stretch. There is far more variety in points of view than are implied here.
Forget what people say the believe and watch what they practice and the results often don't match up well because neither point of view makes enough sense to live by. Although most will never admit it, the largest group of all are the agnostics, those of us who are just not so sure and are happy to discover, appreciate and wonder. Only to the Christians with their demanding faith does certainty matter, making doubt weakness or sin itself. The popular current religions were all built on and continue to be sustained by medieval superstitions believers are too fearful to let go of, no matter how little sense they make.
By far the biggest problem with religion (include its mirror, atheism) is need to have exceptions. In other words, one must be this or that when, if there is a god at all, life and everything about it would be the same for everyone, believers and nonbelievers. Why would anyone need to step apart into an exceptional belief system, just to be one of the anointed? Wouldn't we all simply be part of nature, all in the same river? But no, and this is the flaw in all religions. They require us to leave nature, God's own realm, as far as I can see, to be exceptions. That is the wrong step to take, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what anyone believes or doesn't.
Atheists are not disturbed people. More than often I find theists to be the disturbed ones.
With the inadequate proof given, I do not believe. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and I was a believer until about high school where I decided to look to the Bible. What I found by reading the Bible was what did it for me.
The biblical God is anything but just.
WOW a lot of thoughtful comments here so I'll address them as brief as possible, which is so hard with this subject.
goodpal~ I agree in part about humans identifying Gods/ God like the image of a human. I like the book. The Shack because it is about a man who doesn't really beieve in anything, goes through a tragic event, and comes to believe because God shows "himself" to him, but "God" plays a joke on him to show he is exists but is only what our mind portrays him to be in shape and form. To this man, God shows up as a big black woman. Jesus shows up as an ugly version of what Christians portray him to be, and the Holy Spirit is an small Asian lady. Interesting stuff.
secularist10~ on science, scientists still believe in the extra variable even though they don't have the proof.
I experienced God and wrote a comment about it in the link at the end of my hub. It was certainly an experience as real to me as love. Like I said if you've never been in love, you can't explain it. So since you've never had an experience of God than it is almost pointless for me to explain it to you.
Brain scans show people who believe in something are happier people. THat's a pretty good side effect and a little more science for you."God" or believing shows up in brain scans just as love does. Where is your "evidence" of love. If I pray is that evidence of GOd, but you can see it. just as you can "see" love.
Science is limited, and believers like to know all this is not limited. Science also recognizes the placebo effect and some people are healed by just believing in God and prayer. Not such a bad deal and part of science.
I just want to reitterate what a commenter, silent reed, said above. "With our limited "intelligence",I think it would be more productive if we try to comprehend "God" with our feelings instead."
scourge90~ we never use all 100% parts of our brain at once, maybe over the course of a day various parts get used, but that't why a genius is lacking in other areas such as emotion and common sense. If we use a lot of one or few parts of the brain, it sacrifices others. We use our brains to dream but most of the time we have no recollection of those dreams. If we include movement and breathing, then yes we use more percentage of our brain because that is part of the cerebellum which is more like instinct. So yes we do use mroe if you count your instincts, but I believe an awareness of God would exist in our feelings and reasoning parts of the brain- the cerebrum. Our brains are working when we have dreams, but we are unaware of them most of the time.
deathmetalzombie~ pleasant name btw. God is a personal experience and you will not find him in a book, even the Bible. If you've been in love where is your proof? Because you experienced it, but if I never experienced it, then I don't believe you. Since I've personally experienced God, I have no doubts, but you do because you've never experienced it. THe best thing to do is keep an open mind. You are not a judge so you can't determine what is "just."
David stone~ Yes there are so many points I didn't bring up but hoped to represent a non religious, yet still a believer's, point of view and anything I never heard when I was agnostic. No one person could convince me of God, but I did find out the point wasn't to take others' word for my own. it was to think independently and especially feel and pay attention. The only point I would like to make is if Atheists or agnostics are waiting for "proof" they are looking outside of themselves and totally missing the point. If they are waiting for evidence they are putting hope on the limitations of logic. We feel love on the inside and that is where God is too. We don't wait for someone to tell us when we are in love- it's personal and only measurable by ourselves.
Thank you for the "stretch" comment. I will actually take that as a compliment because I hoped to get people thinking a bit outside of the norm or their comfort zone. I don't identify myself with a certain religion. I lean toward Christianisty, but run from churches. Going to church for years dulled me to God and it wasn't until I ended that way and kept my mind open did I have my own personal experience. It was undeniable proof for me.
Going back to a more natural existance or belief system would probably bring us closer to a God. God is more of a feeling, like love than a tangible hard fact.
This was a well written hub. As a non-church going Christian, I found it informative and educational. Thanks for taking the time to write.
Namaste.
Thank you so much Deborah.
You put Buddists in the believer catagory yet what Buddists believe is more Atheist. They don't believe in God they way Christians, Muslims, and Jews do. They don't believe in a Creator that would create a place with suffering. I don't see Buddists fitting into your definition of an Atheist either. They aren't miserable as you describe. They see suffering because it exists. How did disease come from man? We created cancer? Considering the sun was created by God in your mind then he created the radiation that causes cancer didn't he? We spread some diseases but we didn't create them or at least didn't create all of them. They are little life forms created by God not man. If man created disease then we too are gods because we created life out of nothing. I am not Athiest, Spiritual Agnostic with some Buddhist and Native American beliefs would best define my beliefs. I know we are here and someone or something put us here. I do agree that the other 90% of our brain will reveal God but I don't see God as most do. You like Bruce Almighty as and example but I believe more in the Force like Star Wars. I don't imagine God as some man with a beard in the sky like some wizard from Lord of the Rings. I don't think God has human qualities like almost every god man has talked about has. To me God is the force that holds the universe together and a force that runs through everything in the entire universe. God doesn't meddle in our lives. To understand God would be to have that other 90% of our brains working. If you knew everything that every scientist that every lived knew you still wouldn't have a clue as to what God is really about.
I have to say I really look forward to seeing your new work. The way you look at things is refreshing - I like the way your brain works. I applaud you for taking on such a controversial topic with a mind that is wide open. My faith is also a personal thing. I have friends who would fall into the "believers" category and some that would jump, skip & hop into the "athiests" crowd. I hope that I am open enough to see both sides of the fence, but must admit I do not think the other side is greener. Thanks again for sharing your heart with us. I am becoming quite a big fan.
P.S. I am now going to read eatfiftyeggs response. Hope that Man with no pants jumps in as well!
JDizzle~ This is a chicken or the egg debate,but I'll exaplain which came first, from my perspective. God created the sun, yes, and if you eat the right foods God created, your skin will not absorb the rays as much. If you eat certain healthy foods, you wouldn't get sunburned. I have fair skin and do not get sunburned. Problem solved. God did not create us to be flawless. Actually if we were all created to be happy and healthy, there would be no such thing as Buddhists because there whole journey would be undiscovered if we were all the best we could be and no one suffered. What would we be here for if there was nothing but happiness. In fact happiness would have a totally different definition, we would have no bad orsuffering to compare it to. I know Buddhists also believe if it werent for suffering, we would not appreciate good.
Well we agree on the humanization of God That was my point using Bruce Almighty. It is silly to humanize God. I mentioned in another comment above about a book that really straightened my mind out about misconceptiona about God. The book is the "THe Schack" where God is a big black woman, Jesus is an ugly hairy jew, and the holy spirit is a small quiet Asian woman. Yeah all that kind of blew my mind, but it's necessary to get beyond the sterotypes of God and find Him personally.
I didn't say Atheists are miserable, I said I was miserable with that mentality. It is my opinion.
Thanks Lillee M. Themanwithnopants is gone for a week, but I can't wait until he gets back to get in on this.
izettl:
Yes, many scientists believe in God. Does not mean it's true. We trust in the system, the method, the results, not the individual man.
Actually, you'll be surprised to learn that I've experienced what many would describe as "God" or "a presence". Usually it happens when I'm alone in a dark room at 4 am. But I know this is just a trick my mind is playing on me because of the darkness, the silence, the fatigue.
So we've probably had similar experiences, but you explain it in supernatural terms, I explain it in natural terms.
Prayer is evidence that you believe something. It is evidence of your state of mind, your emotions, your personality. What is love--a state of mind, an emotion, an aspect of your personality. So the equivalence is not between love and god, it is between love and belief in god. I'm sure your love is real, and I'm sure your belief in God is real. God himself is another story.
Science is definitely limited, but it's the best we have. Got anything better?
This is a good write up but based on my stand on equity for all I think we have to face some facts. I explained some things about this sets of people and why people may reach any conclusion about God in my book, “it is time we truly know why Jesus wept…” which I think is a book for all humanity as it is truly time to mark a new beginning for humanity. The point is that “a fool said there is no God, while those that belief in God does not even know how to reach him.” Are we justified to blame atheists that says, “there is no God’ and he rest in peace while religious group are fighting and killing each other with words, and weapon when possible? I am not saying that all religious sects are same but I think it is right for us to put our house in order by removing the mule in our eyes so that we can see clearly to convert the atheist. I often say that it is a same that humanity will be separated by the religion just as they were once separated by the color of their skin. That is why I was marveled when I saw a group that believes that a new age will come when our religion will no longer be a barrier then I realized that my book mark its beginning like I said, it is truly time. Atheists will belief in God when those that belief in God will merely stop believing in God but will start living in God. I trust we all can do better by knowing more about God and if it is truly one God for all or there are others Gods that people reach via various religions.
Very thought-provoing hub. I know there are former atheists out there who set out to disprove God and tried to use the Bible to do it. Instead they found truth and became Christians. I really believe if you're truly with all of your heart seeking truth God will lead you to Him.
Izettl,
(If someone were to give them the definitive proof of God today, they would convert. In essence, their lack of belief is hanging on by a thread- that's not very reliable is it?)
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Nice hub, btw...
(Atheists have the most questions, but simultaneously claim to know the most.)
They only “know” what they’ve memorized. If you ask them a single question regarding their faith, they can NEVER provide you with a straight answer.
(there are former atheists out there who set out to disprove God and tried to use the Bible to do it. Instead they found truth and became Christians.)
Cari Jean,
Yep, that is the textbook definition of a true-blue atheist! They know everything, but when confronted with evidence and proof, they fold and switch sides. Typical atheist,.....the “truth” always gets them in the end!
Just because you eat well and don't get sunburn doesn't prove much. Yes eating well helps but it's not just that simple. There are many variables involved like genetics which is the first thing that comes to ming. If you took 100 people and gave them the same amount of sun, the same exact diet and did this over a couple years some of those people would still get cancer at some point or sunburned. Some of them would probably end up with something totally unrelated to sun exposure. So yes God did make the food that "can" help prevent disease but he also made the disease along with the poor people that will get a disease no matter how well they take care of themselves. I don't think the world should be perfect or miserable, I think it should be what it is. Again it's another variable, the world could have turned out any way and this is the way it is. I was watching the Science Channel; I think it was the show with Morgan Freeman (WOW! Morgan Freeman really is God!) and it was about the existance of God. They used the game the Sims as an example. I thought it was a good way of putting it. My view of God is like turning on the game and just letting it go with all the rules and variables that are programmed into it. I get the impression that most people view God as the one that actualy plays the game and controls every thing. Like your Sim is about to get hit by a car so you pause it and move it and perform a Sim miracle. In my Sim world the Sim is going to get smashed...such is life.
I rated this hub up up up. Very honest and thought provoking.
I was raised an Atheist by the society (I was born and grew up in Soviet Union, this explains it, right?), I was an Atheist since I was a toddler, it was put into my brain by school. God was for old grandmas. Young generation should know better.
Never the less, I am a Believer who does not need a synagogue (church, mosque, etc) because I have my God inside. The same is my mother, as I understood it when I grew up.
God has very little to do with religion. Religion was invented by some people to keep other people in obedience. Atheism is also a religion.
It is really necessary to explain God to anyone? Everyone has to come his/her own way to God.
you mentioned in this article that athiest take comfort in what is know, when it is totally the opposite! atiests take more comfort in the unknown, this is why we do not tun to illogical explanations for our answers...
Cari Jean and ReuVera~ I'll address you together because you both had a similar statement about God being personal, no Bible, church, or other person can explain it to you. That was really my goal here. I was describing how I found my faith and how I answered the logical battles in my head enough to keep and open mind so that when I did experience God, it was a clear sign and no dount clouded my head.
I wanted to describe how belief and faith works, and makes sense, while logic doesn't. In fact, logic has more shortcomings because you can't logically prove or disprove God. THanks to you both for the supportive comments.
Thomas~ I guess I don't understand your statement. If you don't turn to illogical answers then how can you turn to or be comfortable with the unknown.
J Dizzle~ Yes you are right about controlled experiments with similar variables not turning out the same as in being and healthy and getting sunburned. Our bodies are not perfect- that much is true throughout history. If it's not one disease, it's another. If you look at prominent diseases throughout history, they are reflective of the people and society, purely a symptom of free will.
Ha you made me laugh about Morgan Freeman- his voice is everywhere. You mention free will and that is something still debatable between religions even. Some say God has a plan and others say he doesn't. Some say he interferes but what is truly considered interering? That will have to be a stalemate. I understand your points and liek I mentioned above in this comment box, I just want people to know that GOd is personal and Atheists who are waiting for someone else to tell them who and where God is, isn't getting the point at all. Atheists and many religious type focus too much on the Bible. I believe it's a great reference tool, but not how you find God.
fatfist~ thanks for your comment and you picked out my favorite phrases too, even the one by Cari Jean. I love your last phrase of your own. Atheists are non-believers until the proof arises. Even in science, there are a lot of oops and not many things are "proven". There are many more theories than facts that I bet Atheists still accept as "proof".
secularist10~ yes I have something better than science and rather than explaining it in my drawn out words, another commenter above said it best "With our limited "intelligence",I think it would be more productive if we try to comprehend "God" with our feelings instead."
My experience with God: 9 years ago my boyfriend at the time passed away from a drowning accident. About 4 hours before I found out, I was driving in my car and a voice entered my head and said "It is not his fault. He must go". I remember an intense feeling all over and just sort of knew what was going on while being "guided" through the whole day as it ultimately unfolded. With my background in psychology, I know all about mind playing tricks, justifying things, etc, but how did this happen before I knew he died and within the hour of his death? That's why I know it's personal- how can any one person prove such jibberish? After I found out about his death, I walked across the street to a church and had my own, first discussion with God. There's more, but i'll keep it simple. I've done research and none of this is scientific, however, I began reading other peoples' testimonies of similar incidents and I did what every scientist does when given only personal case studies to work with; look for commonalities. Just like love, there are commonalities across cultures in religious experiences.
DAvid Kaluge~ Great and thoughtfull comment- will check it out.
Excellent hub.thank you for sharing your knowledge.
izettl-Feelings are better than science? Hmmm, not sure about that. I don't recall any major advances in human knowledge occurring through feelings. Did feelings give you your psychology degree?
That's an amazing story, izettl. There are thoughts and phrases running through our heads all day long. It's very possible that the traumatic experience of learning of your boyfriend's death triggered an intense memory of that particular phrase.
Also, doing very repetitive, ingrained activities like driving, running errands and the like that we have been doing for months or years, are very amenable to a trance-like even semi-hypnotic state. Also known as "the zone" in sports. This coupled with the trauma/ shock may help explain the "guiding" experience you had.
I know it is not very romantic or poetic, and this is just my conjecture based on your story. But the point is that most things can be explained through naturalistic means. As you know, our knowledge of the mind is still limited, so it is very premature to assume a divine/ supernatural influence.
There are definitely commonalities across cultures in religious experiences, because all people have similar tendencies to wonder, to imagine, to fantasize, to enter trance-likes states, etc. As far as we know, it is the human brain and similar human social structures that are producing these mental effects. There is no reason to think it is the work of a supernatural force.
I just have to say that this hub made me laugh out loud. I think it was the part when you referred to "definitive proof" as an example of how "their lack of belief is hanging on by a thread."
It's really more like this: There are three shelves in a man's mind, one full of that which he believes, one with that on which he is unsure, and one full of things he has no belief in whatsoever. Show an atheist "definitive proof" and if he is as logical as he claims to be, he will take God from his place on the non-belief shelf, and place it on the shelf of belief.
In other words, there is no thread. I would also add that just because there are gaps in humanity's understanding of the universe and of ourselves, that doesn't necessarily imply that God fills any of those gaps.
Artoflegendindia~ thanks for the comment!
EdG~ Glad I could give you a good laugh. If your brain is organized by 3 shelves, then you are seriously limiting yourself becausethe brain is made of of much more grey matter and what you are talking about is purely black and white thinking.
I have reitterated several times here that Atheists are foolish to look for God anywhere but within themselves. Once they get that far, then they will begin to see God in many things outside of themselves other than placed on a shelf. "hanging on a thread" is a figure of speech as in your brain "having 3 shelves". Come on, it really doesn't have shelves, but I know what you are talking about without having to break it down too literally. You know, you gave me a good laugh too.
secularist~ feelings are more expansive and less limited than logic. THink of all the things you are capable with your feelings, now think of how great your logic is. i also believe in a gut instinct and intuition that has made me feel not great about a situation and later learned it was harmful whe nthe chances were 50/50. When you put logic to love, humor, or belief, it kills it.
Feelings are what drove me to get my psych degree. Without the motivation, I wouldn't have done so well.
My experience was before I learned of my boyfriend's death so I must have been psychic. Of course I would have explained away anything in my brain AFTER learning of the death, but BEFORE? How do you explain that? I'm not really asking you to explain it because it's your belief versus my belief and I don't want that to be the focus. I just wanted to understand how an Atheist is sure there is no God. An agnostic, is not sure, but an Atheist is sure there isn't. How can anything be absolute? Many scientists faced with "proof" will set out to disprove it so not many things are actually proven. You can't use the "if I see it, it exists" because I mentioned how faulty our eyes and perception are.
Add Stephen Hawkings to the non believers.
His latest book says the universe didn't need God.
Believers have NO answers, they quote from an ancient non updated document that is not even a single document but a man made collection of documents. They weren't even written at the same time, and they weren't written at the same time as the event they talk about.
The bibles are not self authenticating so quoting from them is a circular argument. The old and the new testament portray two different gods and they try to hook in the new testament with a trinity.
Two thousand years later an no new words to quote from God.
If you were God would you want to take credit for the world today, or even its history? I wouldn't.
The world has natural deadly environments, and people all around the world are dying from them. They are also dying from the hand of man. Evil is dominant in this world. It has been since recorded time. It is not getting better, nor will it get better.
If you were created to blind loyalty to God, you would have been created as a dog. Having the highest intelligence in the world, humans need to exercise their minds and not put leases of faith in the way.
Sorry ~:{
opinion duck- Thanks for commenting. i am a believer and i did not quote anything form a Bible. I believe anything written on history should be taken with a grain of salt.
If you were a parent whose child grew up into a "bad" person would you take credit, well, no if you were cowardly, but yes in some ways because you created this person in part besides their own free will, but I mentioned above that's why free will is tricky.
We have free will, but not really, we sometimes become products of our parents or ancestors issues or we must follow man made laws, etc.
Evil may seem dominant in this world, but that's only if you watch a lot of TV- it dominates the news, movies, etc. We have 58 minutes of bad news then 2 minutes of some nice story (maybe). So you view the glass as half empty- that doesn't make it so- just your perception.
If there is more evil in the world, it is only because we have lost values as a country (just speaking for the U.S). Our united values were symbolized by Christianity- praying, pledge of allegiance in school. All of our accountability is being stripped away so yes I agree we could be headed towards more evil in the world, if you view it that way.
Evil has been dominant throughout history.
No one has to be taught to be bad, they have to be taught to be good.
We don't have free will, we have the illusion of free will.
It is true that you didn't quote from the bible, but you also didn't identify the God that you wrote about.
The word God means something different to different people. It is not a self defining word, it needs to have references. without these references it becomes the interpretation of the listener as to what it means.
The use of words becomes a problem in the world, especially those words used in the workplace that are there as shortcuts to using a more detailed description.
The person saying the word assumes that that person that is listening to the word has the same interpretion. Unfortunately these words of art are not so objective as we like to believe. The truth is that that the listener uses their experience to fill in the blanks and the meaning of the word. This is in many cases, different than the meaning that the speaker was trying to convey to the listener.
my opinion...
I'm glad we could all do so much laughing over such a serious subject, but I think you misunderstood and perhaps I was unclear. The "three shelves" metaphor was merely a simplification for the sake of discussion. We could be here for years categorizing the library of the human mind. I was merely commenting on the literary implications of the phrase; "hanging on by a thread." It portrays the imagery of someone hanging off a cliff, ready to fall at the slightest push. But even more humorous was how you used the phrase in conjunction with "definitive proof," as if it were such a small thing that it was only worthy of snipping a thread. But then, we both know that its significance is a matter of scientific and philosophical perspective. At any rate, most atheists do a lot more thinking on spiritual matters than you may give them credit and find themselves on fairly sturdy ground when it comes to their beliefs. If a group on either side of the argument were really "hanging by a thread" then I doubt the religion vs. atheism debate would have even survived to see the invention of the internet.
As I said in a comment on a hub by eatfiftyeggs, I am sure that both of you are aware that all your arguments have been used before. Nothing new under the sun except the presentation, which was quite civil for a discussion of this nature. Even if we never end up convincing each other of very much, at least we can say we tried without tearing each other's hair out. So at the very least, I applaud you for that. Keep up the good work.
izettl--“feelings are more expansive and less limited than logic.”
Agreed. But can feelings help us discover more facts and develop more knowledge than science? I think you'd agree the answer is no.
Logic is NOT the only thing that matters. Feelings, creativity, love and hope are all extremely important. But to learn about the universe, we need logic/ reason to learn what is correct and what is not correct.
You are a very smart woman. Feelings motivated you to study psychology, but I know they didn't help you learn it. I know you learned psychology through reason, recognizing patterns, solving problems, etc.
In my previous comment, I already offered a possible explanation for your experience before and after.
There might be a God. Until there is proof for something, there is no reason to believe it exists. I am an agnostic to God, leprechauns, unicorns and many other things.
God fails the test of logic. God may pass the test of emotion or feeling, but Santa Claus passes the test of emotion or feeling too, especially for children. That does not mean it really exists.
Just because it is an easy, poetic, romantic or comforting explanation for something does not mean it is the correct one. Just because we don’t understand something does not mean it is the work of God.
secularist10~ ever heard of emotional or intra-personal intelligence? Actual logical intelligence makes up for 1 of nine various intelligences.
i hear all the time on the history channel about an anthropologist or archeologist saying they "had a feeling" and something drove them to look somewhere or do something different that led to a discovery. I'd say the two (feelings nad logic) are very intertwined and logical (book smart) people tend to compartmentalize everything. Sure I can learn anything, but without motivation, I don't even open a book. The one thing I learned from college was that you are only as smart as you are motivated to learn. If you notice the smarter one gets, and I'll use geniuses for this example since I was raised by one, the dumber they get in other areas, mainly interpersonal areas dealing with other people and social skills. You see, people skills are learned through experience, whereas knowledge is learned through books. I am saying that about God- you can't learn God throug hsome formulation or book, it is learned through experience. No matter how hard you try, you won't be as good with social skills if you only learn about people from a book. I guess our argument/discussion is more based on where/what is proof. I think and feel that proof came to me in my experience- there is no doubt in my mind. The fact that a logical doubter coudl be changed overnight is what I call "hanging on by a thread"- it can change overnight. Also like the true story of "The Shack". For me, God was the logical explanation for my experience and likewise for the man in "THe Shack".
izettl-I am not a psychologist, so I am not using “logic” in this meaning. When I say “logic or reason” I mean the basic process all humans use to figure things out.
You say we can only sense God through feelings.
Can feelings tell us if something exists? Well, let’s think about this.
What have feelings ever proven the existence of? Humanity has always had feelings. Yet humanity was not aware of the existence of most things in the universe until recently. If feelings alone prove the existence of anything, how do you explain this?
Aside from their own existence, feelings alone cannot demonstrate the existence of anything. (Inspiring people to search for existence is different from actually finding existence.) Yet you say God is the one exception to this rule.
Now, I ask you: since feelings alone cannot prove the existence of anything except God, how do you know that God is really there, and not just an illusion produced by certain feelings?
I already offered a potential explanation for your experience earlier. God is not needed. If I had your experience, I would probably explain it in that way.
You can continue to believe it if you want, but you are hanging by a string. With the overwhelming abundance of evidence, logic, experience and observation that support a naturalistic worldview, you choose a supernaturalistic worldview.
That is hanging by a thread. Because as soon as science advances and can explain a little more about the brain, that justification for God vanishes. I hope you don’t mind links, but here are two short videos that you might find interesting.
OPINION DUCK~
The fact that "bad" exists doesn't directly correlate with the existance, or non-existance, of God. You are basing some of your argument on the typcial Christian perspective and my intention was to present this in a non-bibilical or typical way.Christians want to badly explain and justify good and evil. It's all perspective. We view certain tortuous rituals in our history or other countries as bad, yet it's commonly thought and praticed. It's all perspective really. I could argue good and bad all day and how much good has come from bad. Bad usually stems from a lack of understanding, remorse, or two other aspects of humanity that can't be seen or proven, but are the driving forces; love and power.
The God I idenify with lies in the similarities between several religions. I believe he is all-encompassing and gives us free wil by giving us choices; prayer and energy to communicate. I believe several factors people experience with faith and God, such as spontaneous healing and ironically answered prayers are a result of energy sent to Him and the universe. So"nothing" is your explanation or do you just believe in "something" other than God, but also yet to be proven.
Yes, words can be misinterpreted, but how do you know you love the people you love and not someone else walking down the street? Probably because you have "experiences" with the one you love. Expereinces that lead you to believe it must be love. I could say I don't believe you love them, but you would argue you do and we could debate that all day because I can't feel or explain your love.
ED G~ I didn't misunderstand your metaphor, I was simply pointing out that I was using a metaphor as well about the "hanging by a thread". I understand what you are saying but belief can't be categorized based on a black and white shelving theory- either you believe or you don't. Atheists have a hard time understanding how believers can get frustrated from time to time and lack in their beliefs during these periods. But that is the grey area you are not willing to accept.
The fact that the Atheism vs. religion debate has gone on for years is proof either side is hanging on by a thread. If one thought the other never converted or never recogized merit in the other side, then no one would find value in debating it- end of story. It goes on because religious have given up faith and Atheists have found it. It's a delicate matter, hence, hanging by a thread.You visited eatfiftyeggs hub and he is an ex-catholic (or believer) so his faith was hanging by a thread and now he is an Atheist. I feel bad for his lack of belief because I too came from a background that partially enforced believing in a religion as part of my upbringing, but I think that belief is dull and lifeless- it's not how I found God. Christianity is how I almost completely lost God.
I happen to believe this dicussion is fairly unique because we are not arguing Bible versus or God Himself, at least I wasn't trying to, but it turned out somewhat that way. I was trying to convey the way in which people sometimes FIND God is not the way Atheists believe He can be found. For Atheists, there is only one way to find God- proof of existance, and I also argue that is within yourself and not in someone else's words or book. Yes, sometimes people find it that way, but I'm offering you an alternate view of why YOU may not have found God. I'm telling you, you're lack of God doesn't mean there is no God. It's like me trying to explain love to you if you've never been in love. You explain things with "nothing" or "something" or "yet to be determined" and I offer you a explanation that you don't accept- sorry for the inconvenience.
Opinion duck~
I don't remember saying feelings don't prove the existance of anything except God. Feelings of enamour lead us to "believe" we are in love, feelings of power lead us to "believe" we are in control or fight wars to be in control, and feelings of belief and faith lead us to "believe" in a God. How do you know you are in love? How do you know you are in control? How do you know you believe in God? You ask me the latter question and I say how do you know the answer to any of the former questions. Based on experiences, belief, and perspective; I believe in a God. Based on those same factors, you believe in love and power.
More on perspective: You say the "overabundance of evidence pointing to a naturalistic view" that is also perspective. I see more evidence for God and logic/science falls short. I have an illness that has been around for soooo many years and still no cure and no cause known and I want to place my belief in a system of "man" known as scientists or philosopers or whatever. Please, I've seen the shortcomings of science firsthand. I prefer a more expansive system with not as much limitations. The fact that the placebo effect, which is basically nothing or a belief something will work, can be as effective if not more than acutal science is laughable to me that anybody would place as much importance on such a limited industry. Placebo effect is proof BELIEF,in general, is more powerful than science.
I will look over your videos and welcome them into the discussion. Thanks for your comment.
izettl--I assume this last comment was to me, not Opinion Duck.
Thank you. You have simply confirmed what I said earlier: feelings, unto themselves, are proof of their own existence, and nothing more. The presence of the feeling of love is proof that it exists. The presence of the belief in God is proof that the BELIEF exists, not that God himself exists.
I experience a feeling. I call that feeling "God." What is God? God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. God is not a feeling. That is the key difference between love and God.
When I experience love, I experience a feeling, and that feeling is love itself. But when I experience God, I experience a feeling, but that feeling is NOT God himself, it is only a byproduct of God, an effect of God.
When the wind blows, I feel cold. Cold is a feeling--wind is not a feeling. The feeling is the byproduct of the wind, an effect of wind, NOT wind itself.
So I assume my feeling is a byproduct of God, but it could just as easily be a byproduct of an ancestor spirit, a ghost, a medication I took this morning, inadequate oxygen, a witch, a sorcerer, an angel, a demigod, a demon, or my own soul.
Why should I believe it is one of these, and not another?
"I've seen the shortcomings of science firsthand."
Many people said this the day before the polio vaccine was discovered. Ironically, the only reason you're aware of the placebo effect is because of... science.
Before science, what did we have? Leeches, bleeding, animal sacrifices and witch-doctors. Think about it.
Well said by everyone, but I am a Christian and I am a better person for it. Nothing that makes people better should be disputed. God can be a term of salvation when someone hits rock bottom, if they BELIEVE God is their only other chice or way out, then yay for them. What did God ever do to you? Opinion duck, EdG, and secularist. I know Atheists claim to be loving despite God, but I never see the PROOF. Does NOT believing in God make you a better person? or a better scientist?
Char M~ well said yourself! We may not have proof, but we have a lot more. I jsut say "Why Not"? People take a jump out of plain with the belief everything will work out ok- it's called a leap of faith. There is no proof one will survive the fall despite all the precautions taken.
secularist~ yep you assumed right- wrong heading whoops!
I totally confirm science has done a lot, but someday, 300 years from now, you will say the same thing abotu today. Today's standards will look brutal by comparison to the future so it proves science has come a long way, but has much further to go.
So since there is no known cause and cure for my illness, it would seem I might as well leave it up to leeches and witch doctors. ONe in the same in my case. There is proof for a poilio vaccine but no proof of a cure for me so why shoudl I believe someday it will happen? In my case, science and prayer are effectively the same.
Your first several paragraphs are a lot of splitting hairs on literal meanings and such. Love, a feeling, is associated with an object. If you feel love, it is because of something or someone else. If I feel the belief in God it is because of something or someone else (perhaps God)- there is another variable other than simply "I feel love". You need something or someone to create that feeling- it is not independant. THe wind created your cold feeling. What created your, in this case mine or any other believer's, belief in God. That other variable could be God as much as it couldn't be so neither of us is right or wrong.
I believe you are starting to sound like other Atheists and just trying to be right rather than heard or understood. I will be the first to admit neither of us is right or wrong at this point, scientfically or otherwise. Arguing the existance of God was not my intention, but arguing how one finds God or comes to believe in God, was my aim instead. Explaining that God could very well be a feeling or object or both.
izettl--Call it splitting hairs if you want, but there is a clear difference between the *feeling* of love in my brain and the *person* I love. Similarly, there is a clear difference between the *belief* in God in my mind, and *God* himself. That's all I was saying.
"What created your, in this case mine or any other believer's, belief in God."
It could have been a demon, a ghost, an angel, a spirit, a hypnotist or fatigue in my brain, etc.
"That other variable could be God as much as it couldn't be"
Well, going with the 6 I listed above, plus God, there is a 1/7 chance it was God. That is about a 14% chance, which means there is an 86% chance it was not God. So it is more likely it was not God than it was. Add in many other possible explanations, and the odds it was God himself drop to almost zero.
"so why shoudl I believe someday it will happen?"
Because it has happened countless times over the centuries, with many other diseases. It is based on induction and past experience.
"Explaining that God could very well be a feeling or object or both."
Ok, you can talk very generally about "a universal spirit" or "life force" which can mean many things. But when you call it "God" you are referring to a very specific idea to most people: an omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything who has a plan.
There could exist supernatural forces. No doubt about it. I will never say that there is no God. I just want to get across that there is so much room for reasonable doubt that there really is no reason to believe it. Every single justification that you or I or anyone could ever come up with is insufficient. Thank you for the conversation.
Hello, Char M:
I'm sure you are a better person for it, but many have been negatively affected by Christianity. Christianity isn't always "better" for people. What did God ever do to me? It's not clear that God even exists, so the question has no meaning to me.
There is plenty of proof that non-religious people are just as good if not more. In the US the vast majority of criminal convicts are religious, and only a tiny percentage are atheist. Norway is much less religious than the US, and has lower crime rates, more equality, better health, and greater per capita GDP.
Does NOT believing in God make you a better person? No, belief in God in and of itself has no real effect one way or the other. But it does acclimate one's mind to accepting things on blind faith instead of through testing, evidence and skepticism. For that reason, it can have a negative effect on the mind, and can make a person more ignorant.
secularist~ so what you are saying is you bet science will eventually come up with a cure for my illness, but not proof of God. Why do you hedge your bets one way and not another? So it makes no sense to you to believe in other things such as God yet you can't give me reason why they don't exist other than an English lesson in one comment and a statistic lesson in the last one. There is no argument for me because I see the flaws in logic, in general. I still see the limitations in logic. Rules and principles will never give you answers to the deep questions.God changes you from the inside. You are a smart person who is able to say a lot of right things because you've been told to think that way. You think you decided it for yourself or used your logic, but it's all someone esle's. I choose to expand on what people tell me or show me or prove to me. I believe certainty can be created out of uncertainty. Atheists pursue logic because it is their desperate attempt to control something they have no control over.
Dear secularist10,
putting your faith in man is just as blind. We are both blind and therefore both ignorant too. Welcome to the club friend! I practice skepticism too- in man and science and your proof of how religion makes one ignorant. Religion and God are different. I know God and keep my skepticism on religion intact. Institutions, like religion, are created by man. Others will abuse them and play God.
I enjoyed this article a great deal and especially your helpful guidance as to what an Atheist is. I'm a christian or so I think but like you I don't feel you have to be in the church to be so. In fact I feel there is more to do outside the church and the mere adoration and insistence to go to church creates a gap as to where religion creates division. I will stop with that and once again say, I appreciate you insights explaining God to an Atheist.
Thanks Katie M~ It was a topic I thought about for a long time, just never put into words until now.
Your words "In fact I feel there is more to do outside the church and the mere adoration and insistence to go to church creates a gap as to where religion creates division". Extremely well put. Thanks for your insight!
Laura,
So good to be back. I've been adventuring in a nice little part of the world which doesn't have Internet access for the past ten days, and it's good to be back.
I thought I was the one who got things stirred up politically and theologically, but you have out done yourrself my little protegy'. This was well thought out, well written, and I enjoyed it a lot.
There's a couple of atheist wanna be's commenting here and the same nerds are dropping the same little weinner bombs on my hubs in this area of discussion.
You have to appreciate the difference between these worms and eatfiftyeggs for instance. He's a scholor, an atheist, and a gentleman. These guys were the nerds in high school. You remember ... the one's that narc'ed out people for smoking in the bathroom at school .. the one's who always carried their books in front of them. You could just just roll up on one of these guys, bitch slap em, and not feel any guilt. lol
They stay up late at night looking for Christian blogs to throw their evil little darts at. The truth is they are cowards who are mad at the world and God because they just never fit in.
I used to spend more time addressing their comments than I did on the hub itself. but no more. I'll do it with eatfiftyeggs. He's the real deal, but not these guys. I hope you'll do the same Laura.
Anyway, I missed ya kid!
jim
Oh, I meant to say .. People can REALLY learn what you're made of in your debating. Keep pushing it..
jim
you new name is "MY man with no pants (mmwnp)". What's up my man? Yes, I managed this one by myself for a while especially with "secularist10", until I finally went over to his hubs and realized he does seem to be mad about something. I also learned I labeled Athiests a bit wrong-I said they were logical and mostly intelligent, but some of them on here that commented were trying to argue their point logically and it was turning into jibberish instead. So that's it with them I suppose. I agree eatfiftyeggs has no agenda and that's the big difference.
Izzy you adorable girl you--you have six feet of true grit and an intellect like a gyroscope--unerring in its calm certainty. The trouble with the Grinches of the world is that everyone is having fun and they aren't so they want to steal it. That wouldn't be quite so bad if they would then enjoy it but they wouldn't--they just don't want you to do so. Jesus said to the scribes and lawyers:"Woe to you for you have the keys to knowledge and you don't let anyone in--and what is worse, you don't even go in yourselves." One of my favorite believers is the great scientist Blaise Pascal who said that inside every man is a God-shaped vacuum that only he can fill. Nonbelievers try to fill it with reason and the scientific method but the paradox is that very finite place can only be filled by the infinite God. Thank you for the pluck to create and man this ship of query about the heart that has reasons that reason knows nothing about--also Pascal. I'll leave you with another by him.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't."
Blaise Pascal
I'm with Martie above--I just love you! =:)
Awww Winsome, you've gone soft on me. Made me smile though, as you always do. Your comment was truly needed. I took a beating on this one, but it's always the nice comments that shine through to me. I don't mind the rough ones, but I realized through this fiasco that I am trying to point out what can only be seen and filled by those who want to believe- as you say in your comment and Pascal's quote. Great stuff and thanks for visiting.
"If you are not an Atheist reading this, you may be a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu". Remark: Buddhist (if they understand Buddha teachings) are atheists. They deny existence of any "God".
If you want to be objective and asks: "Why Atheists can't believe in God" then you should put one more question: "Why believers can't see that God doesn't exists and is nothing more than a pure projection based on FEAR?" For the same reason: they don't want.
Bruno~ I used the term Buddhist in relation to religion or religious affiliations, which I completely consider a religion. You must believe Siddhartha/Buddha walked and talked with people just as Jesus did. Christians must believe in Jesus. Both "religions" must adhere or try to adhere to the teachings, principles, and guidelines and let Jesus into our hearts or become/be like Buddha, an awakened one. "A Buddha’s compassion, wisdom, and power are completely beyond conception.". Sounds God like to me or similar to a typical Christians persepctive of God.You may think Buddhists deny existence of God, but they are just like Christians in the idea they strive to be like God or Buddha- both deities.
I wanted to point out to Atheists there is more than one way to find God and more than one definition of God. Atheists want evidence, but what if YOU are the evidence and you are shutting yourself and God out? Atheists certainly can believe in God, they just haven't figured out how. Of course you need to want to and that's the hurdle I am trying to explain. At one point, you had to believe in love to be open and able to finding it. Belief came before it's existence. And does love still exist because evidence shows you have a 50-75% of getting divorce or breaking up with a loved one.
Belief must come before God, not the other way around.
As to the Buddha as deity - Buddha is not a deity, is not any kind of a "god" or "spirit" or whatever. Buddha was a HUMAN, not any "celestial being". This is very naive, a little bit childish Christian perspective to think about Buddha as about a God. You don't know what you are writing about. If you want to believe in God it is your good right to do it and to live as Christians live. But don't tell people who live in a different way (Buddhist or atheists) that they are only lost children of YOUR God. They will laugh of your naive thoughts. There is no ONE truth in all religions. Every religion has his own, VERY different one. It is not only not possible to find a common ground for all religions, it would be simply stupid.
If you write: "Belief must come before God" then... I'm sorry to say it, but it seems you didn't read the Bible. There's nothing "before God". From the Christian perspective even Big Bang come AFTER the God.
As to "Atheists certainly can believe in God" my comment is: give me ONE good reason why should I belive in God? What is the purpose? I don't need him. From my point of view he is a useless idea. I don't need him to love, don't need him to live, don't need him to eat, to think, to sleep, to dance, to be tired, to paint, to make children, to cry, to be born, to die... I've just say him "good bye grand-father". I don't see any problem with Christians if they don't tell me what to do and how to think. My life is my life, not a life of YOUR God. I see the problem with fundamentalists of any color of religion (Muslims, Christians, atheists...) who want other people follow THEIR OWN way of life, in many cases extremly stupid and dangerous.
Bruno sp~ Buddhists strive to be like Buddha/Siddhartha. It is a form of worshipping to compare oneself to the ultimate person to be like. If you are a Buddha, you have reached full enlightment as compared to Siddhartha. Christians do the same to mirror their image and life after Jesus, who walked among us just as Siddhartha did.
Buddhism IS A RELIGION as defined by online and book sources- look it up.
"Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha." Sounds similar to the path laid out by Jesus. "In fact the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,and superior to them."
I don't affiliate with ANY religion. I state this in my hub and say that God is personal to me. When you say "I see the problem....with people who want others to follow THEIR OWN life" I am stating the exact oppostie in this hub. I am saying you can believe in a God without all the rules and restrictions and other peoples' concepts. You can follow your own way and still believe in God. The problem really is that Atheists identify God with only Christians, but God has much more meanings to many different people.
Being a bit literal approaching my statement on belief comes before God. I also compared this to love, but it doesn't mean the moment YOU believe in love is when it was created or occurred in general. There was love before you believed in it. Don't be silly.
I'm not telling you how to think, I'm telling you, there doesn't need to be all the restricitons you put on God. Since you don't know God, only identify Him by what others, Christians tell you so stop letting them tell you who God is and find your own way.
I don't know what you write. You discuss with another person apparently. I didn't write (neither think) that Buddhism is not a religion. So why do you write: "Buddhism is a religion"? Of course it is. We were not questioning if it is a religion or not (it is) but if Buddha is god or not. He's not. Your remark is out of the point.
People who say - like you - "I'm not a part of any religion, I've my OWN God" are extremly childish in their fate. Private gods are meaningless. Jahwe or Siva mean something for many people because they are NOT private. All this "privatisation" of god and faith is an American/European side effect of individualism, of extreme egoism and cowardice mixed up together. Private gods?! I beg your pardon, it is a pure nonsense great for a Woody Allen's sketch.
This is not true that atheists identify god with Christians. Quetzalcoatl or Big Manitou are not Christian gods, you don't understand (or don't want understand or can't understand, I don't know) the meaning of atheism apparently.
Bruno Sp~
Let's stick with the facts here. In my hub , I stated "If you are not an Atheist reading this, you may be a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or even someone like myself who's had personal, spiritual experiences enough to convince me of believing in God." To which you wrote your first comment stating "Buddhist (if they understand Buddha teachings) are atheists. They deny existence of any "God".
First, Buddhists are more agnostic than atheist so I can't put them into the category of Atheist- look that up too."Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience" and "As Buddhism spread into cultures with existing religious beliefs, it incorporated local deities and religious practices into the Buddhist system. For instance, in China, a popular boddhisatva became the female deity Kuan-yin, the giver of children". From a Buddhist book and an online source. "Buddha did not explicitly rule out the existence of a God or gods, and very shortly after his death a devotional element formed within Buddhism."
I have my own interpretation of God, not that He is the only for me. He is everybody's God, but I have my own interpretation. Maybe that clears things up better for you. You should read the book The Shack as it explains God as a hefty black woman just so people can look at Him/Her as a neutral being, and not the stereotypcal. My individualism with religion is because when I go to a church of any religion, my beliefs and relationship with God tends to get lost in all the gossip, etc. It's nto that I have a private God. If you look into Christianity it stresses having a private relationship with God and Jesus.One person suffering may become closer to God and one may get angry with God; same God, just different relationships.
I did not say "I'm not a part of any religion, I've my OWN God". Also, if you continue to insult me like calling me childish because of what I believe in, I will deny your comments. I wan tthis to productive discussion and I am not insulting you. Thank you for your comment.
why athiests don't believe in god is because there is no such thing. it isn't rocket science, it isn't due to anger issues , it isn't due to some terrible thing that happened in their lives. it's because god is a made up myth that humans use as a way to justify so many occurences that it kind of freaks me out.
I refer you to here.
She has a different view of God.
A very open-minded and informative hub. I am educated in science and tend to analyse everything. My parents were rather opposite like yours - objective father (atheist that gave into christianity eventually), subjective mother (pentecostal christian). I was brought up christian, and used to believe, but now I'm agnostic athiest. Christianity is too subjective IMO
baileybear~ thanks for your comment. It was probably the nicest one I received from agnostic and/or atheist. I totally understand with your background. sometimes I think my mom (Christian) chased me away from believing in God for quite some time. I think it's the subjectivity that was what got me believing- that sounds weird, but it's true. I saw God through everyone else's eyes and the church, butthen I realized it must be my own relationship with Him. But anyway, thank you again for your input.
why. you either know God or you believe in Man and all thing man do end in death God is eternal and is why the world here
lostdogrwd~ thanks for the comment
Only me again nice hub izettl given me quite a headache in the past actually this subject to be honest i will try to explain why.
To not believe in something means it don't exist hence if it don't exist why think about it and if you not thinking about something then why name it and say you believe in nothing because to believe in nothing means you believe in something
This isn't meant to confuse you or anyone but to be a active non believer to me means you have a belief rightly or wrongly like the rest of us.
To me, I think non-believers believe in nothing besides what you see is what you get, therefore not requiring an ounce of belief. Nothing is nothing. If someone believes in nothing, then it isn't a belief. Nothing=0 in my book. Nada, nilch, zip, zero. I understand your philosophical approach, i used plenty of that in this hub. God forbid I read it again after writing it many months ago. It was a tough one to wrap my head around. I have to understand myself, a devout Christian, and an Atheist whom inspired me to write this. It was fun at the time, but could produce a headache right now.
Took me awhile to get here, but I'm glad I finally made it. You've written a wonderful testimony to your faith and your life journey, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to read it. The careful thought you put into the hub is matched perfectly with the intelligence with which you have responded to the comments. Great piece of work, a pleasure to read, and one I'll keep following just to see where the comments continue to lead.
Dave Price~ Thanks for taking the time to read this. This is one of those hubs that took on a life of it's own. It's been an interesting journey.
Great hub
My brother is a pastor and my mother an atheist, from the two extremes. It helps me find my clear middle grounds. Either that, or I'm over optimistic, yet still better than being under optimistic.
castlepaloma~ thanks for stopping by. I also came from two extremes- mother Christian and father Atheist. I know what you mean. Somehow I believe I've found a middle ground too.
Izettl, the anthill analogy at the top of the page reminds me of an episode from the original Star Trek Series. The crew of the Enterprise encounter a locally omnipotent being, called Trellayne (spelling?), who causes a lot of suffering. The delayed revelation is that Trellayne is an adolescent god, whose parents finally intervene, and undo some of the damage.
The moral of the story is that omnipotence does not necessarily imply wisdom, or even good intentions.
Roddenberry was a genius. Apparently, he anticipated the responses of believers and skeptics.
Skeptics could say: Assuming that there is an omnipotent being that we call God, how do we know that he's not like Trellayne?
Believers could say: Meh, another false god. Ho hum.
Larry Fields~ you bring up some excellent points. I even remember seeing the star trek episode you are referring to. thanks for stopping by. "The moral of the story is that omnipotence does not necessarily imply wisdom, or even good intentions." very interesting.
Interesting hub, and interesting comments. Though, as a scientist, I don't believe in God, think that the existence of a God is possible, and see no reason for him to exist. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493)
However, as a scientist, it is clear that just because it can not be proved there is no God now, it does not mean that it will not ever be proved.
meant 'think that the existence of a God is not possible'.
Chris Fry~ I've looked at it from a scientific point of view too. There are also more ways than just one to look at the belief, or not, in God. But even my scientific logic does not draw a convincing conclusion. THanks for stopping by!
An atheist or a scientist can’t disapprove the existence of god. This is also true that no religion can prove that the god exists. Yet we see that the religions exist for centuries. I mean religions those talk about god. Being a human being I can think. My thinking tells me that if there was no religious claim for god there must a god or creator. When I see everything in my own eyes I can see a creator behind every creation. In every creation there must be a planning first then the creation comes out. Even a nonsense person can realize it that without prior planning a snake, a mosquito, a cow, a sparrow, a human being and a crocodile can’t be created anyway. The earth moves round the sun in a planned way. The moon also does that. So, who is that planner that very creator? The answer is God, the almighty, the omnipresent, the omnipotent. Who planned this that only the human will have possess the intelligence other countless animals not? The answer is God only. So, why is there no God? Why should I be an atheist? If I not be an atheist what is the pain? What ails me to be a believer? Now come to the question should I follow any religion? Yes, there must be at least one religion created by god, which tells of only one god or one creator. Atheist people want to prove god in a scientific lab but this is nonsense of them. Science is human creation for human, science is not complete yet. So, if today’s science tells that there is no god it can’t be believable.
You have introduced such an issue when in this modern scientific age people with their stupid thinking try to disapprove God’s existence. Nonbelievers are going to face the God’s face after their death. I must say the dead atheists are appealing God to send them back to earth so that they can believe him.
apal19 wrote:
"You have introduced such an issue when in this modern scientific age people with their stupid thinking try to disapprove God’s existence."
This tastes like a straw man argument. Very few scientists worth their salt think that they can disprove the existence of a deity.
It's important to understand that scientific thinking and religious thinking are very different. Much of theoretical scientific thinking involves the articulation of falsifiable propositions, and the testing thereof. (Hat-tip to Mr. Popper.) And scientists are always looking for the simplest physical explanation that fits the facts. This second concept is called Occam's (spelling?) Razor.
Legitimate religious thinking is about non-falsifiable propositions. An example of a legitimate religious question: What happens to the spirit after the body dies?
Problem is: Some religious leaders, past and present, conflate the two types of thinking, and have gotten very in-your-face about it. Hundreds of years ago, you could get into big trouble with the Catholic Church if you espoused a heliocentric view of the solar system.
Today, the Earth-centric view of the solar system, espoused by religious leaders of the past, is laughable. It's not so much that the old view is false. It's that the heliocentric view fits the available facts in a much simpler way. The heliocentric view also has greater heuristic value; it raises more scientifically interesting questions.
It's quite understandable that many Freethinkers and other fence-riders jump to the following not-quite-logical conclusion:
Since some ill-informed religious people have made ridiculous claims about the natural world, their religious beliefs must necessarily be false.
The decline of religion in the US is only tangentially related to the expansion of scientific knowledge. More to the point, intolerant religious people have poisoned the well. And they are their own worst enemies. It's unfortunate that this subgroup is drowning out the voices of the majority of religious people in the US, who emphasize the religious teachings about being honorable, and about being nice to people.
upal19~ thank you for your reasoning and comment. Much of it makes sense. I like to think we as humans only understand the physical and logical aspects of life, but don't understand as much of the spiritual and that is where God can be found.
Larry~ well my comment to you is somewhat similar to upal19 in that we try to prove or disprove and find God
in logic or physically heart and mind, but he resides in spiritual awareness.
Church is a whole other argument because people leave church for the hypocrisy and lack of getting anything substantial from it. I'm not big on church, but I absolutely believe in God. Hypsocrisy runs high in many religions and that's chasing people away, along with their faith in God as well.
Thanks for the comments
The Atheist view point typically comes after knowing about God. Just like when a child comes to the realization that Santa can't possibly true because it doesn't make sense i.e. they learn about how money works and how time travel would be rather difficult. So to do most people come to realize that this God of the bible doesn't exist. Some continue on with church for social reasons, others allow themselves to be brain washed with repetition. Deep down we all know the truth. That's why the faith feel the need to convert others to their way of thinking to counteract their doubts.
THanks for the comment peanutroaster. The various perspectives are interesting. What you mention about churchgoers ws what originally turned me off from God, but being away from that environment finally gave me some truth of my own.
This was a brilliant Hub, I loved it, this is great, my goodness, if we had more people like you in this world, there would be less atheists, i don't have anything against them, there great people to have intellectual conversations with, but I bet this would put something up and bring out certain things they might have not known, I love this especially because it is friendly, This is great, you now have a new follower
Thank you Thought-Provoking. I tried to reach the logical side of spirituality. I am glad you thought it was friendly- I was trying not to start a riot in the comments section here, I just wanted to get some information across that was especially helpful to me and thought I'd share it. Thank you also for the follow!!
Saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day, it said, "God doesn't believe in atheism."
Medkh9 17 months ago
that is what i call a great article i have bookmarked it thanks for the hub