Belief in God is infantile...

a reply to: stormson

Well actually.

Letting ANY belief take over your life is infantile.

If there is something which cannot be proved, whether that be "god" or "no god", or any other belief,
and you let that unprovable belief take you over.. let "It" turn you into an asshole; then that is infantile and also very common and human. We are an infantile species.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: stormson

Well actually.

Letting ANY belief take over your life is infantile.

If there is something which cannot be proved, whether that be "god" or "no god", or any other belief,
and you let that unprovable belief take you over.. let "It" turn you into an asshole; then that is infantile and also very common and human. We are an infantile species.

Kev

Even if that belief drives someone to make the world and themselves a better and better place?

a reply to: stormson

Organized religion has played both an important and destructive role in human civilization. It is very slow to adapt to the changing times and as a result it falls into disrepute among many. This has led to many to really question the existence of God as they feel if God did exist then everything would be perfect. That is not the case.

The childlike view of God that most religions teach children is really never expanded upon. Thus many adults think of God in this way and never really try to think about the deeper meanings of creation. I hear a lot of people say "old guy with a beard" or as you said "imaginary friend" when describing God. Human's tend toward anthropomorphism when describing God. God is not human like, God is spirit.

God plays, for the most part, a hands off role in our development. Besides from the foundation of physical reality and the bestowal of life and mind we are left to grow within our realm of free will. As I mentioned above this seems to be a major issue for most people. They think all would be perfect. That their loved one would not have died, or they would not have this hardship or that problem if God really existed. They fail to realize that we are a form of existence that was intended to grow through the process of progressive evolution.

Evolution is nothing more than God's time/space technique of creation. When God desires to create a "perfect" being by direct creation he does so. You could say Angels would fall into this category. They were created as they are, fully functional. They do add to their knowledge by experience, but had a baseline to start from.

We are a form of existence that must gain everything from experience. You can say our civilization was literally forged out between the anvil of necessity and the hammers of fear. We have a long way to go, but we have accomplished a lot. To use your child/parent analogy, there are times as a child that you don't see or understand the wisdom of your parents. Just because we struggle to see the divine wisdom of this life doesn't mean we won't understand once we move on to a higher existence.

I have posted the below list before, but I think it is relevant to this discussion. It helped me understand some of the perceived hardships we face as a mortal being on a world of time and space.


The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:

1. Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.

my humble opinion is that spirituality is a product of sentience grappling with its own nature. organized religion, on the other hand, is a bunch of politicians taking advantage of the confusion resulting from that grappling.

a reply to: dashen

Ahh no I get it. Funny.

a reply to: dashen

Interesting response...I've researched this very topic quite a lot.

I personally think that both theism and atheism are inappropriate responses.

Maybe I'll write a post on this.

Kev

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: introvert
It is my belief that believing in a god is a coping mechanism.

It's a way for people to feel better by having unanswerable questions answered by religion.

It is my belief that believing in "Initial singularity" is a coping mechanism.

It's a way for people to feel better by having unanswerable questions answered by science.

initial singularity?
You mean the big bang?
You don't believe in the Big Bang?
The Big Bang is a coping mechanism?
You don't believe that radio telescopes have tracked background microwave radiation to a central point in space?
Fascinating
They even made a map

a reply to: dashen

Wow cool....Thanks for the link. However from your link:

Additionally, the circled region above shows a cold patch of sky that's larger than would be expected. That suggests that the universe essentially didn't mix itself up as uniformly as has been hypothesized, but it's not clear why. It could be that the Planck map doesn't take enough of a macro view, or that CMBR rays have been manipulated in a way that's not yet understood.

There are two ways to look at the data released by the ESA–which, to be clear, aren't the final word. First is that the harder we look at the universe, the more we realize we don't understand it so well. (We still aren't sure what dark energy even is, remember.) On the other hand, it's impressive how closely our models hold up as our data gets more precise and more refined. I suppose both are true, as is this: The universe is really old, and it's amazing that we're even able to prove that.

So to summarize.....

We haven't got a clue, but I have a pretty picture to look at!!

Is the OP a troll? Ok, I don't think you're a troll, but you're unfriendly or confused. You DO know by making this thread you'll cause trouble? You do. So why do you make the thread? Because you doubt your convictions, so you come here to confirm yourself and regain confidence?

/sigh

If you walk into Dairy Queen and complain about ice cream being sold then who's the fool? Is it really hard to figure out? You're the fool!

I can understand complaining about a place selling ice cream if it formerly never sold ice cream and this somehow changes it negatively for you as a customer. You've been there so long and it was like family.

This is why I don't attack religious people. Sometimes I'll state an opinion about them, but I don't attack them or necessarily dislike them. And I also must admit there COULD be a God and I'm just unaware of it.

Maybe something happened like a religious person peed in your breakfast? Or you saw recruiters/promoters for the God's Warriors camp. So something set you off and you came here to vent some of the pressure.

I'd also like to add secular people worship science. This "God" thing is a faith thing and ti's linked to subconscious death anxiety. Ironically, the faith increases in the midst of the anxiety and relieves it. An atheist will hesitate only for a fraction of a second more than usual, then they will, more forcefully than necessary, decree God doesn't exist. Religious believers will react similarly, but opposite. People are looking for purpose and meaning in this world, in this life. For atheists, much of that meaning comes from the natural sciences and interpretations which instil purpose. That's my opinion. It's based on some research, but it's by no means definitive.

EDIT: Ok, I must add some references:
www.sciencedirect.com - Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety...
www.sciencedaily.com - Death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God...
phys.org - Death anxiety prompts people to believe in intelligent design, reject evolution: research...
www.patheos.com - In the US, belief in life after death is linked to belief in a just world and lower anxiety...

He found that positive beliefs about the afterlife (belief that the afterlife means a union with God, a reunion with loved
ones, and/or a life of eternal reward or eternal punishment) increased the likelihood of believing that this world is just.

In other words, people who believed in an afterlife were more likely to think that “Anything is possible if you work hard” and that “Everyone starts out with the same chances in life.” They were less likely to agree that “The world is controlled by a few powerful people” or that “Finance is a field where people get rich without making a real contribution to society.”

Flannelly also found that people who believed in a just world had less anxiety and other psychiatric symptoms such as paranoia, obsession and compulsion.

www.patheos.com - Religious people believe in a just world...

Believers in a just world think that things happen for a reason. In particular, they are more likely than other people to think that victims of crime are in some way responsible for what happened to them, that the poor are poor because of their own actions, and that sick people have done something to cause their illnesses.

The last link could have been better titled, something like "Religiosity differs in its influence on belief in a just world." The link doesn't compare non-religious people and religious people, so it can't say religious people are different from others. It shows there's a different affect on just world beliefs between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity.

It's hard watching parents let their kids grow up to be tyrants none the less delusional. We have a god problem, and it's contagious. It will take some serious mental work to get rid of the useless civilization stifling god concept. I'm not afraid of god, but I am afraid of someone who embraces such an obvious cop out.

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: introvert
It is my belief that believing in a god is a coping mechanism.

It's a way for people to feel better by having unanswerable questions answered by religion.

It is my belief that believing in "Initial singularity" is a coping mechanism.

It's a way for people to feel better by having unanswerable questions answered by science.

initial singularity?
You mean the big bang?
You don't believe in the Big Bang?
The Big Bang is a coping mechanism?
You don't believe that radio telescopes have tracked background microwave radiation to a central point in space?
Fascinating
They even made a map

(Sigh...) Initial singularity is before the Big Bang. It's the ridiculous belief that everything in existence was once a single point. That includes all of the rules that govern Nature, the laws of physics & particle physics (including the stuff we don't know yet), and everything else.

I can believe it from a religious point of view though. I can believe that God created all of the rules for Nature & how everything would interact at subatomic levels and greater. Then He said "Be!" and it started (aka, it "banged" & began lol).

But there's no way I'll accept the initial singularity of science, which claims that there was nothing at all until the "bang". Then suddenly everything began, laws of Nature and all (that's electromagnetism, gravity, space time, elements & their qualities, particle physics, and everything else suddenly appearing in a perfected form). That doesn't even make sense. Some try to claim that this "big bang" may have been a "bang" that occurred after a former contraction, and may even be just one "bang" in a cycle of "bangs" & contractions. This would allow the belief that the laws of Nature existed before our "Big Bang".

However, I think that's just a cop out because they can't prove it anymore than I can prove that God created it. Both beliefs require faith. They place their faith in new sciences while I place my faith in God.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

(Sigh...) Initial singularity is before the Big Bang. It's the ridiculous belief that everything in existence was once a single point. That includes all of the rules that govern Nature, the laws of physics & particle physics (including the stuff we don't know yet), and everything else.

its not a belief, its a fact.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

a direct quote from stephen hawking.

www.hawking.org.uk...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting sidebar...The Big Bang Theory was first proposed/theorized by a Catholic priest. Monsignor Georges LeMaitre. Yes, a current bedrock theory of our entire universe's creation was proposed first by The Church started by Jesus Christ, The Catholic Church. Christianity at odds with science? Hardly.

He first proposed the expansion of the universe. (Usually attributed to Hubble, which is not true.) He was the first to derive what is now known at Hubble's Law, and the Hubble Constant, published 2 years before Hubble. Heaven forbid a Catholic priest and scientist actually give us the key to unlocking the mystery of creation.

Msgr LeMaitre's work stunned Einstein, who reluctantly agreed with his work, and later, wholeheartedly endorsed it as a great work of physics.

The Big Bang. "Hypothesis of the primeval atom". "The Cosmic Egg"

I love poking that one at atheists when they use Big Bang in their arguments.

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting sidebar...The Big Bang Theory was first proposed/theorized by a Catholic priest. Monsignor Georges LeMaitre. Yes, a current bedrock theory of our entire universe's creation was proposed first by The Church started by Jesus Christ, The Catholic Church. Christianity at odds with science? Hardly.

He first proposed the expansion of the universe. (Usually attributed to Hubble, which is not true.) He was the first to derive what is now known at Hubble's Law, and the Hubble Constant, published 2 years before Hubble. Heaven forbid a Catholic priest and scientist actually give us the key to unlocking the mystery of creation.

Msgr LeMaitre's work stunned Einstein, who reluctantly agreed with his work, and later, wholeheartedly endorsed it as a great work of physics.

The Big Bang. "Hypothesis of the primeval atom". "The Cosmic Egg"

I love poking that one at atheists when they use Big Bang in their arguments.

but the interesting point is that none of these currently accepted theories were derived from a spiritual text. they were derived via scientific equipment used in scientific techniques. so, uh, nice try encouraging people to give theism credit for what SCIENCE accomplished. is there an account written somewhere of how god popped into his dreams and handed him the equations for the big bang? no, no there isnt.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: enlightenedservant

(Sigh...) Initial singularity is before the Big Bang. It's the ridiculous belief that everything in existence was once a single point. That includes all of the rules that govern Nature, the laws of physics & particle physics (including the stuff we don't know yet), and everything else.

its not a belief, its a fact.

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

a direct quote from stephen hawking.

www.hawking.org.uk...

Some place their faith in humans while I place my faith in God. Quoting Hawking today could be like quoting Newton's gravity laws in his heyday. Or quoting the numerous bogus race sciences of the late 1800s & early to mid-1900s. People accepted them as fact at the time, then science proved that they were wrong.

Like I said, it doesn't make sense to me that all of the laws of Nature were miraculously created & perfected in a fraction of a second as our "bang" occurred. And he has no proof of that, either. He's just giving his interpretation of the currently available data, which is no different to me than ancient astrologists giving their explanations for why being born under a certain star provides special benefits. And he'd be completely wrong if it turned out that our "Big Bang" was just the latest "bang" in a series of bangs & contractions.

The beauty of true sciences is knowing that a single new discovery can destroy even the most famous theories. Knowing this, I'll always take these modern interpretations w/a grain of salt.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
The beauty of true sciences is knowing that a single new discovery can destroy even the most famous theories.

However, no matter how the Vatican tries to reinterpret scripture to fit our social evolution, the premise is still wishful thinking.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You lost me chum.
What if each successive bang and contraction built new laws of physics upon the fabric of space. So that maybe the first bangs paved the way for more complex structures to exist in future incarnations
.
but the root cause remains a mystery

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So you use a picture with a Star of David to make your point? lol

EDIT: Sorry had to laugh because actual atoms don't look like that. Not only is the scale completely off but so is the "design" of the orbits of the electrons. But I guess we can't be too factual in this discussion about science, right?

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You lost me chum.
What if each successive bang and contraction built new laws of physics upon the fabric of space. So that maybe the first bangs paved the way for more complex structures to exist in future incarnations
.
but the root cause remains a mystery

First, this whole series of responses was from me saying I don't believe science's version of "initial singularity". It's perfectly fine if you believe in it, because you don't have any more proof than I do. As I've said in this thread, some place their faith in humans & new sciences while I place my faith in God. I even stated I could accept it if God created the laws of Nature first then said "Be!" and it began (aka, it "banged"). But Hawking's version sounds no different than a weak Hollywood movie intro: "Nothing existed, even the laws of nature. Then this nothingness banged & everything came into being already perfected. the end".

Second, you're really going to use a "What if" to show you may be correct & I may be wrong? Is that how "science" works? Sounds more like a different s-word: "speculation". You can't "refute" my belief by bringing up a hypothetical situation then ending your argument by saying it's a mystery. lol

originally posted by: gentledissident

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
The beauty of true sciences is knowing that a single new discovery can destroy even the most famous theories.

However, no matter how the Vatican tries to reinterpret scripture to fit our social evolution, the premise is still wishful thinking.

Uhh, what does the Vatican have to do with me or my argument? You see the crescent moon in my avy, right?