Is There A God?

Sinister · #19 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheist

Ok, onto Sinister Ji

If I have a cause, it is simply to find out WHY people on this site believe in god. That's it - it doesn't sound as egregious as you make it out to be. I am not doing it to make fun of people, simply out of curiosity. Others have posed to questions to me in the process, and I have answered them. I am not delivering sermons, because I don't think sermons should exist! Again, I am just asking people WHY they believe in god, period. Religious people get so offended so quickly. I am open-minded, otherwise why, as an atheist, would I ask people why they believe in god? A close-minded atheist would not even be on this site! I am being curious by asking this question. If you think that is being close-minded then you are saying that curiosity is a bad thing (religion has taught you well then).

Also, when I ask "do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster" I am trying to prove a point, which you have proven for me quite nicely. You think it is a completely absurd question, right? Of course it's absurd, that's the whole point. When people ask me to defend why I don't believe in god, or suggest that to not believe in god I first must understand god, it is equivalent to me accusing them that they have to justify why they don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster and that they have to understand it to not believe in it. Sounds absurd right? Same thing with god. Just another fictional character that people get offended about way too quickly. I am not simply regurgitating something, I am proving a point (which you did for me).

Does the existence of truth require belief? This is a good thought-provoking question! My answer would be no. Some things are simply true (and yes we can quibble about how human perception could be wrong, we could be hallucinating, etc.). As an example, water is composed of two atoms of hydrygoen and one atom of oxygen. We know this, therefore we don't have to BELIEVE in it, because it's already true! It's pointless to believe in something that we don't have the answer to yet. It's more practical to simply say "I don't know, let's investigate it and see if we can figure it out." I am the first to admit I don't know anything, that is why we have to investigate things and figure them out. The first part of the scientific process is making an observation about something you don't understand. It's about the humility of admitting our own ignorance. For as much religion preaches humility, I have seen so many arrogant religious people (mostly christians).

So, once again, my curiousity has led me to ask religious people why they believe in god and they have taken offense to the curiosity and accused me of being a preacher (this is not the first time it has happened - since when has asking a question to investigate something been tantamount to preaching a sermon? Ridiculous). My apologies, I will stop now and find other ways to investigate. Thanks though, I did learn quite a bit from our discussions.

you do realize that curiosity demands the feelings of intrigue, commitment and passion...right? (which you do not display because you dismiss that which is not privy to your tastes...an attitude observed and underlined above)

I was just performing a thought experiment.

According to your post you seem certain that the existence of truth is not dependant upon belief (which according to modern studies of physcology and neurology, a person could challenge). This means that you are convinced that truth exists independent of belief. and therefore truth is subjective only on the grounds of external perception. Which also means that truth would exist without you present.

But if I recall you also admit that you know nothing.
how could that be? You have nothing but cognitive dissonance written over every position you hold…therefore is any position you hold of any consequence?

SO...is there a moral obligation on your part to prove yourself wrong and challenge your own beliefs/truths if you indeed are the humble servant of uncertainty? ... it is something i would enjoy and consider worthy of discussion (rather than another endless debate about existence of god...by people who know nothing).

Narayanjot Kaur · #20 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Pantheism

(rare) worship that admits or tolerates all gods
the doctrine or belief that God is the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the universe as a manifestation of God
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Narayanjot Kaur Ji, Dawkins is using the accepted definition of Pantheistic God.
And Atheist ji mentioned (when introducing Dawkins) that he is an Evolutionary Biologist.
Ok back to the discussion

Given he is using one accepted definition of pantheist among several -- how ably has he made his case? Or is his point that believers are a benighted lot, and he au contraire is not?

OK back to discussion.

BhagatSingh · #21 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur

Given he is using one accepted definition of pantheist among several -- how ably has he made his case? Or is his point that believers are a benighted lot, and he au contraire is not?

OK back to discussion.

May be we ought to discuss how well he has made his argument on a separate thread? You can start by posting his youtube videos.
Expose him Narayanjot Kaur ji, expose his ridiculous arguments!

Sinister · #22 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheist

It's pointless to believe in something that we don't have the answer to yet.

OH really?

answer and truth are not synonymous. I could answer 2+2=5 even though it is not the truth it is albeit an answer. An answer can be random and nonetheless be an answer. Therefore all answers are pointless unless they become a justified true belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheist

We know this, therefore we don't have to BELIEVE in it, because it's already true!.

you are going to argue that we dont have to believe in the justification, in order for something to be true? then a person could argue that justification is pointless...and thus all science and all the justifications hereof are also pointless

Atheist · #23 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

you do realize that curiosity demands the feelings of intrigue, commitment and passion...right? (which you do not display because you dismiss that which is not privy to your tastes...an attitude observed and underlined above)

I was just performing a thought experiment.

According to your post you seem certain that the existence of truth is not dependant upon belief (which according to modern studies of physcology and neurology, a person could challenge). This means that you are convinced that truth exists independent of belief. and therefore truth is subjective only on the grounds of external perception. Which also means that truth would exist without you present.

But if I recall you also admit that you know nothing.
how could that be? You have nothing but cognitive dissonance written over every position you hold…therefore is any position you hold of any consequence?

SO...is there a moral obligation on your part to prove yourself wrong and challenge your own beliefs/truths if you indeed are the humble servant of uncertainty? ... it is something i would enjoy and consider worthy of discussion (rather than another endless debate about existence of god...by people who know nothing).

Yes, you could say that curiosity demands intrigue, commitment, and passion. But I disagree with your conclusion. Just because I admit my own ignorance and curiosity does not mean I have no intrigue. Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion.

I will explain once again: I simply was curious to know WHY people in this site believed in god, period. So far, only one person has explained why, and they said that they just do. That at least answers my question.

Of course I am intrigued, why else would I pose the question? I was raised by Sikh parents and was Sikh for most of my life, so therein lies why I am intrigued and committed to finding the truth. Does it make sense? You're trying to make me out to be some monster going on a rampage just because I'm an atheist. I just asked a question, why you believe in god, and what your definition of god is. Instead I am getting attacked.

Truth and belief are indeed independent. It is true that water is made of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. If you did not believe that, I'm pretty sure the composition of water would not change. Believing it does not make it so. Therefore truth has nothing to do with belief.

I admit I know nothing, that's just my way of admitting my own ignorance. The amount of knowledge I have in my brain compared to the amount of knowledge that exists is infinitesimal. Would you come to any other conclusion? That doesn't mean I have some cognitive dissonance, trying to reconcile the composition of water yet admitting my ignorance. The whole point was just to remind ourselves to be humble...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

OH really?

answer and truth are not synonymous. I could answer 2+2=5 even though it is not the truth it is albeit an answer. An answer can be random and nonetheless be an answer. Therefore all answers are pointless unless they become a justified true belief.

you are going to argue that we dont have to believe in the justification, in order for something to be true? then a person could argue that justification is pointless...and thus all science and all the justifications hereof are also pointless

Hmmm, talk about splitting hairs. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you knew when I said "...that we don't have the answer to yet" you knew what I meant. Ok, let me rephrase so everyone understands:

It's pointless to believe in something that we don't have the RIGHT answer to yet.

Yes, hypothetically someone could say that 2+2=5, but this increasingly hypothetical person would obviously be wrong (right??). So even if they believed that, who cares. We have the RIGHT answer to what 2+2 is so it doesn't matter what anyone else BELIEVES. It seems like we agree on this point but we're just stating it in different words. You're obviously intelligent so I don't have to explain that to you.

Onto your last statement, "we don't have to believe in the justification, in order for something to be true?" Yes, that's EXACTLY what I am saying. 2+2=4 right? Therefore it does not matter if you or the guy down the street does not BELIEVE in the justification, because again you NOT BELIEVING it does not make 2+2 not equal to 4. That does not mean scientific justifications are pointless!

All I'm saying is that if something is really true, anyone's belief or dis-belief in the justfication is pointless...it would still be true. The justification would of course explain WHY it's true...but once the justification is proven to be true, we no longer have to BELIEVE it, we have no choice but to accept that it's the truth. For example, I have no choice (and it doesn't bother me one bit) but to accept that 2+2=4. So, I don't BELIEVE that 2+2=4, I simply accept that it is the case because the fundamentals of math prove why it's the case (my favorite justification is that if you have 2 pies, and you add 2 more pies, you have 4 pies total).

Again I'm pretty sure we are both on the same side of this particular issue, just using different words.

I am just asking various people here, why do you believe in god, what type of god do you believe in, and do you think god intervenes in human affairs and listens to prayers? Then I can ask more questions (like can be influence god?). You don't have to ask me to define god (there is no god as far as I'm concerned), I'm asking YOU to see what YOU believe out of curiosity.

But no one appears to be interested in answering those questions (except Lee!), and since the religious people here have taken offense, I will take my discussion elsewhere. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Tejwant Singh · #24 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 07:29 AM

Atheist ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the response.

You write:

Quote:

Yes, I fully and completely understand that the Guru Granth Sahib is poetic, and this is what I wanted you to admit to.

Where did I deny that not to be true or was this one of your many ends to justify your means? Everyone knows that which is unlike the Bible which you have lumped together. The Bible NT or OT are full of parables and prose which is not the case of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. So, it seems you are confused about your own beliefs/facts.

Quote:

Therein lies the annoying problem with religion - it's not literal! Every single person has a different interpretation. We have already seen here that not everyone has the same interpretation.

I am sorry to know that you are annoyed with the poetry. I thought you loved to question and understand things. Your words:"" I am the first to admit I don't know anything, that is why we have to investigate things and figure them out. The first part of the scientific process is making an observation about something you don't understand. It's about the humility of admitting our own ignorance. "

Why this contradiction about yourself in the same post. Isn't interpreting things the process of learning? We all interpret things, especially what is said in a metaphorical manner according to our own understanding and as our understanding grows, we tend to interpret the same thing in different ways. Gurbani is like that. It is like an uncut diamond on which our personal experiences create the facets, which is the life long process.

It is rather bewildering to notice that you claim to know a lot about Sikhi but you have shown nothing but disdain towards it. You have shown very little understanding about Gurbani which is unlike any other religious literature. Yes, I know you will scream that all religions claim the same as you have done in your other posts, which is a false premise and shows total ignorance and absence of any understanding of the subject you are so keen to discuss about.

Let's take the Shabad you have posted 2 lines of. Do me a favour and post the whole Shabad and give us your understanding about it rather than copying and pasting the literal translation from the net. Share with us what Rahao- the main idea of the Shabad relates to. Then we can move this interesting discussion further.

Quote:

If everything is a poetic metaphor, then that gives everyone the ability to believe whatever they want because that's how they interpreted it (agreeably happens much more in christianity than Sikhism...don't get me started on christianity though). When Guru Arjan says "you destroy millions of my sins" one person can think that means god decides when to forgive you for your sins, and another person might think that means the philosophy of the Guru Granth Sahib teaches someone to not sin, thereby effectively "forgiving" future sins (because they don't commit them). So this is again what I don't like about religion. It's so metaphorical everyone has a different interpretation of what it says. The Gurus should have just said "Here are the FACTS about god" and then used poetry/literature of fluff it up. But like every other religion, it forces everyone to have different interpretations. Another reason I am atheist.

Do the doctrines of atheism prohibit people to learn by interpreting things the way they see it?

Is poetry and its interpretation banned in your doctrines of non- belief?

Quote:

My "desperate attempt" of putting a couple lines from a shabad was to prove a point, and I did just that. It got you to admit that it is poetic. The song "wind beneath my wings" indeed is a poem just like you said, but it's sole purpose is poetry and motivation. When RELIGION capitalizes on this, it's totally different, because "wind beneath my wings" doesn't tell people how to live their life, but religion does. Is my point now clear? I enjoy listening to shabads for their music and poetry, but clearly the true meaning behind them is always open to interpretation.

I am sorry to say that you have failed miserably in trying to prove a point for the reasons given and questions asked above. Gurbani is nothing but a tool box full of motivational tools which teach us how to breed goodness within and share with others. It also teaches us how to be open minded and shows us that learning is a life long endeavour, hence, the name Sikh which means a student, a learner, a seeker. It has no dogmas but it teaches us how to be pragmatists.

If I were you, I would study it and by doing so would find lots of things that identify with your way of life/lifestyle.

Quote:

4. "Define Ik Ong Kaar as described in Mool Mantar for the reasons only known to me." I guess I just don't know what you mean by that question then. "Ik Ong Kaar" means god is one. There are no reasons only known to me. Please clarify your question, I clearly am not getting it.

As you claim to know Gurbani, sing Shabads and play Tabla etc etc, my question still stands. Mool Mantar describes what Ik Ong Kaar is. I asked you to describe it according to Mool manter, not what Ik Ong Kaar stands for. Mool Manter is the whole stanza which explains all this. Make an attempt. I never used the word God because that is not what Ik Ong Kaar is described as in Mool Mantar, according to MY interpretation.

.

Quote:

Does atheism make me believe in energy? No.

Good, because it is not a belief but a fact as I said in my earlier post.

Quote:

Energy of course is, as you say, formless, genderless, and timeless

That is exactly what Mool Mantar describes Ik Ong Kaar is. I wish you had studied it as were urged to.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Sinister · #25 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheist

Hmmm, talk about splitting hairs. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you knew when I said "...that we don't have the answer to yet" you knew what I meant. Ok, let me rephrase so everyone understands:

It's pointless to believe in something that we don't have the RIGHT answer to yet.

Yes, hypothetically someone could say that 2+2=5, but this increasingly hypothetical person would obviously be wrong (right??). So even if they believed that, who cares. We have the RIGHT answer to what 2+2 is so it doesn't matter what anyone else BELIEVES. It seems like we agree on this point but we're just stating it in different words. You're obviously intelligent so I don't have to explain that to you.

Onto your last statement, "we don't have to believe in the justification, in order for something to be true?" Yes, that's EXACTLY what I am saying. 2+2=4 right? Therefore it does not matter if you or the guy down the street does not BELIEVE in the justification, because again you NOT BELIEVING it does not make 2+2 not equal to 4. That does not mean scientific justifications are pointless!

All I'm saying is that if something is really true, anyone's belief or dis-belief in the justfication is pointless...it would still be true. The justification would of course explain WHY it's true...but once the justification is proven to be true, we no longer have to BELIEVE it, we have no choice but to accept that it's the truth. For example, I have no choice (and it doesn't bother me one bit) but to accept that 2+2=4. So, I don't BELIEVE that 2+2=4, I simply accept that it is the case because the fundamentals of math prove why it's the case (my favorite justification is that if you have 2 pies, and you add 2 more pies, you have 4 pies total).

Again I'm pretty sure we are both on the same side of this particular issue, just using different words.

I am just asking various people here, why do you believe in god, what type of god do you believe in, and do you think god intervenes in human affairs and listens to prayers? Then I can ask more questions (like can be influence god?). You don't have to ask me to define god (there is no god as far as I'm concerned), I'm asking YOU to see what YOU believe out of curiosity.

But no one appears to be interested in answering those questions (except Lee!), and since the religious people here have taken offense, I will take my discussion elsewhere. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Welcome, to an actual philosophy website,

You have entered the Cartesian circle. 'Things are because they are.'

We are not splitting hairs and we do not agree because agreement at this juncture is irrelevant… I am showing you the difference in philosophy between the externalist and internalist position of knowledge. There are no right or wrongs answers in philosophy…just commitment, curiosity and intrigue…lets see if you are honestly up for it and are what you say are (rather than what you believe you are...odd isnt it).

We humans do not know why light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum or why it indeed decides to travel at ~3x10^8 m/s...and not a different speed. we cannot determine the ought of mathematical and physical constants. they just are and the internalist would argue that they are because we believe that they are...and be just as 'right' (another word you have introduced).

if all human knowledge comes from sitting, observing and recording patterns, instead of constructing in our minds the ought then what does that say about life in general? Is that reality? what breeds conviction?

If you analyse something from the top down, where you explain things on one level using terms from the level below it, you reach a point where you end up with an abstract concept that says something is the way it is because that's they way it is. (circular belief)…Descartes ran into this (and I’m sure many thinkers before him did as well) it has been termed the Cartesian Circle.

You seem eager to discuss god

What is god? How can you discuss god if you do not have the patience in discussing the nature of truth? cause afterall in a pantheistic reality god=truth.

Atheist · #26 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 07:57 AM

<sighs>
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/29504-is-there-a-god.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504

Once again, people have totally misinterpreted what I said, trying to find contradictions where there aren't any, trying to attack me at every angle, and jumping to conclusions that aren't true. This coming from people that follow a religion that says be humble.

Seriously, all I asked was why you believe in god, and only one person honestly answered it...clearly I chose the wrong forum...

jasbirkaleka · #27 (**permalink**) 15-Mar-2010, 08:05 AM

Navdeep88 ji, everybody talks about spirituality.Could you pls. explain what this "spirituality" is.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29504
If God=Truth, then one can believe in truth without dragging God into it.Or are you talking about some other kind of truth?