Why do we Need A God?

[Lancaster]

Let me pose this question:

 

Why do we need a God?

 

The Ancient Greeks needed Gods to explain natural phenomena. Heileos was the reason that the sun rose each day, Demeter was the cause for a good harvest, etc. But soon, scientists like Plato began to explain these things scientifically. Many realized that Gods weren't needed, and probably didn't exist.

 

We're in the same situation today, we need something to explain how the Universe came about, so Bam! We used the make believe Christian God to explain that he created the Universe. The only thing stopping this God from being destroyed is a lack of complete scientific understanding on the subject. God is playing poker with modern scientists. Formerly, he had a full hand, with cards like "geocentricism," "creationism," and "young Earth." But scientists played better cards, "heliocentricism" "evolution," and "radiocarbon dating." God only has a few left. His real ace in the hole is the afterlife, which really has nothing to do with science.

 

Unfortunately, some of his followers on Earth are causing a lot of trouble. Instead of attempting to understand science and showing rational behavior towards subjects like evolution, they found a new strategy: ignoring it. They found that they are perfectly capable of ignoring the flaws in their own logic and completely disregarding scientific evidence.

 

So I ask this, what place does a God have in today's world of free thought and intelligence when all the evidence in the world is at our fingertips? Why do some people cling to tradition when tradition is wrong?

 

The Christian God has no right to contradict science. In my opinion, the only place God has in our society is spiritual. God does not belong in an argument about evolution, he has no right to participate in a discussion of the cosmos, and he has no place in the scientific community. Why? Because God is spiritual. God does not have anything to do with science, and if the Bible contradicts that statement, it is wrong. We do not need a God to help us understand the world around us, but to understand ourselves. I use God as a foil to define my own beliefs. But others may use him differently. God is personal, and has no place in scientific discussion.

 

Sorry for the tangent, I expressed dual points.

[HydrogenBond]

The value of God is that it creates a long term goal for the human mind to strive towards. Think of what term God implies. It is a phenomena beyond comprehension, that is given temporal limitations based on the human ability to explain, but always steps ahead of the contemporary mind, at any point in history.

 

If we leave God out of the picture, what becomes the future image that human's strive towards? A bunch of lazy humans, indulging desires, while machines do their bidding? Explorers of space looking for higher intelligence so we can emulate them? With God humans have a concept that is as expansive as the human mind, more than the physical universe. It will take forever to fully unravel this nebulous mental image, pulling humanity forward, each step of the way.

 

It is sort of like having a good teacher. One may try to emulate and learn what the teacher can teach. Eventually, the student reaches the level of the teacher and needs new teachers to continue to grow. With God, you never reach the end, but there is always room to grow. Even Bubbha or Christ, who are considered the "teachers", saw themselves as students and children of something higher that even they strived toward. If it wasn't for the idea of God, the buck would have stopped there. Instead, the learning process still continues, ad infinitum.

 

Maybe the misunderstanding is that people equate God with a mythology that is assumed to be the final answer. This does not jive with the sensors causing some to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Lancaster]

Needless to say, I didn't consider the psychological advantages and disadvantages of having a God figure. But why emulate a teacher that does not show proof of it's existence? This path you describe, all you are learning may not be correct. I don't think it is. Why (in my opinion) follow down a path of lies?

[tmaromine]

...Why (in my opinion) follow down a path of lies?

 

 

I'd say – as pretty much mentioned already, for spiritual support. I think back on when I did believe (though I was little religious then even), and I remember that it was a "better" feeling of believing in "God", but once I got passed the "fear" of going to "Hell", I realised. It is much easier in when sad or mad to talk to the 'always-listening-God'. And also, not every mind can come up to my or your 'level of self-comfort'.

 

Believing in God does make a 'reason' to want to keep living, but I find that being Atheist today's life is worth much more than would it be if I thought I was going to Heaven. Why treat people nice, and help, and just be nice, on Earth, if all I have to do is repent and confess to go to Heaven when I die ? Of course, atheism can also lead to people believing that life is really worth nothing, thus it doesn't matter to harm others. I and I think many others are on the good side of it though.

[HydrogenBond]

The point is not to learn by memorizing but by thinking. If one expands the god concept to beyond what religion teaches, and looks at it also as the nebulous frontiers of knowledge, beyond where things are civilized or settled, then there is use. This is the part of God that has yet to be revealed but which we know is out there waiting to be found. This is where faith comes in. Who would have figured the internet 100 years ago, yet people where probably pondering this back then. They were considered crazy by the more civilized folk, who could care less for the frontier. That place for only the crude and rude rabble.

[Lancaster]

The point is not to learn by memorizing but by thinking. If one expands the god concept to beyond what religion teaches, and looks at it also as the nebulous frontiers of knowledge, beyond where things are civilized or settled, then there is use. This is the part of God that has yet to be revealed but which we know is out there waiting to be found. This is where faith comes in. Who would have figured the internet 100 years ago, yet people where probably pondering this back then. They were considered crazy by the more civilized folk, who could care less for the frontier. That place for only the crude and rude rabble.

 

But there is no evidence of this God. Let me see if I am reading your post correctly, we should go beyond religion by imagining. . . what? How can we go beyond these things when there is no evidence or practical application that we can ever possibly hope to observe? What you are suggesting is all imaginary, speculation. How can you have faith in something that no one else has ever seen or attested to the existence of?

[Fatstep]

We don't need a God, but it is a belief.

 

I have a question.

 

If atheists do not believe any God exists, then why do they say; "Oh My God" or "God damnit"?

[BEAKER]

Do you think God believes we exist?:evil:

[InfiniteNow]

If atheists do not believe any God exists, then why do they say; "Oh My God" or "God damnit"?

 

It's called an idiom. If one disagrees with calling women bitches, why do they say, "Son of a *****?" Linguistics evolve per society and the context in which the speaker finds themselves, not belief. Your question shows no contradiction or hypocricy.

[Fatstep]

Do you think God believes we exist?:evil:

 

If God made us, then of course.

[BEAKER]

If God made us, then of course.

 

Amen.:evil:

[Chacmool]

We don't need a God, but it is a belief.

 

I have a question.

 

If atheists do not believe any God exists, then why do they say; "Oh My God" or "God damnit"?

I don't ever say that. I say: "Holy Boerseun" and "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster".

[tmaromine]

We don't need a God, but it is a belief.

 

I have a question.

 

If atheists do not believe any God exists, then why do they say; "Oh My God" or "God damnit"?

 

 

Why not at least replace Hell with universe ? :)

 

"What in the bloody universe...!?" "Where in the bloody universe did you...?!" Of course, bloody needs to be added for emphasis... :shrug:

 

Even religious people (at least some of the religious tens I know, and only teens really...) say those phrases, and aren't they supposed to not use 'their lord's name in vain' ? Some of them clearly didn't pay attention in church, but I guess they could just repent 'later' instead of watching their language. :doh: . . .

 

For Atheists though, why wouldn't they use the "lord's name" in vain ? In «Angels & Demons» one said something like, "this is a science institute; you can use the lord's name in vain all you want." :D

[Fatstep]

For Atheists though, why wouldn't they use the "lord's name" in vain ? In «Angels & Demons» one said something like, "this is a science institute; you can use the lord's name in vain all you want." :D

 

Science does not believe in a God, so there is nothing to say in vain.

{In Science}

It is not the Lord's name, the lord does not exist, so why even say it at all unless you are arguing about why a god does not exist?

{/In Science}

[Lancaster]

Please stop, this whole "god's name in vein" argument is completely off topic and pointless. Who cares? It's just an expression with no real meaning other than it's emotional connotation.

[tmaromine]

Please stop, this whole "god's name in vein" argument is completely off topic and pointless. Who cares? It's just an expression with no real meaning other than it's emotional connotation.

 

 

 

[OffTopic]But one note somewhat related to the title ; if we "need" a God, then we needn't be using his name in vain.[/OffTopic]

[tmaromine]

Please stop, this whole "god's name in vein" argument is completely off topic and pointless. Who cares? It's just an expression with no real meaning other than it's emotional connotation.

 

 

 

[OffTopic]But one note somewhat related to the title ; if we "need" a God, then we needn't be using his name in vain.[/OffTopic]