I have a few `sayings' I use regularly, much to the annoyance of some of my friends...
I used to say I know only two things.
1) There is a God
2) I am not him
I was willing to concede on the first part. I do not KNOW that. In addition what I said I knew/believed in is not a theistic God as that first bit implies. I still believe, but can not prove, that there is some binding energy/force/common consciousness that drives us. But calling this God is probably not the best way to say this.
I don’t believe
· in a God that intervenes.
· that eternal damnation awaits those who do not accept a particular religion.
· we or the earth was created by a God
I do believe
· in People, Relationships and in a Common Humanity, and I think that is what gives meaning to our lives.
· we can do a better job at verbalising our common moral system than is achieved through religion, with far less bloodshed and psychological damage.
And I know
I am not God.
But everything else is open to debate.
Since saying `I am not God' is a bit silly, the whole statement will no longer be one of those annoying (/endearing?) sayings I use.
8 comments:
this is somewhat less inspiring than I had hoped for... but I do think its worth noting what kind of god we do or dont believe in, since often people care more about this that the question in its most general form.
also, getting you to stop using this is probably one of the great achievements of my life.
What can I say, sorry to not inspire but changing ones mind is not easy...
plus while I have found a reasonable justification of why perhaps a theistic God does not exist, I still need to find an answer to the question, what about the people that need a theistic God to exist.
I realise that wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, but it makes it `true' for you.
For a long time I have said, I believe Jesus is God, but if he is not, it will not effect the way I live my life or how I believe I should act... so changing my mind leads to know dramatic impact.
But for some people, it may mean sacrificing their social circles, family relationships, and even romantic relationships. For some people this is asking too much.
If as I think relationships are what give life meaning, then if requiring a `belief' in God is a necessity to maintain those relationships... asking that you choose `truth' over `meaning' as such may be too much to ask
it may be a bit much to "ask" but as you say, it doesn't have much to do with truth. And while I get all that, I think there's something a bit, off, about a community (or a person) that will cast you out for simply being unable to believe something is true.
maybe I waffle too much. What I really want to know is, do "you" think I'm going to hell (and no squirming about not believing that hell is a place with actual fire and brimstone and stuff)?
Stu
I own your soul. I still think I overpaid, but I own it. I also own Tracy's and a number of other Smuts/Fullerites. Phil put up too much of a fight.
So, If there is a hell, then no matter which religion was right we will be there, but I will have a wicked ass army with me and we can take over the place.
No Stu. Unequicovally No.
I don't believe there is a hell... or a heaven.
If there is a hell, there is one person who I know other than Adolf who will be there for sure, and he is a Christian. Then again, so was Hitler.
I still am unconvinced that we just disappear when we die. I also feel there is `something' else going on, but I believe it is completely natural with nothing supernatural about it. We just can't comprehend it... yet.
I know you don't believe in hell. It's what I want to know of other theists.
I should actually say that I've recently upgraded my estimate of the possibility of life after death. I have to since I think there's about a 20% chance that we're part of a simulation. Though I'd still put the odds of an after life at significantly below 20% I no longer put it so close to zero.
What this afterlife may be like I don't know...
20% seems very high...
I mean, I would guess you would say the chance of Federer winning 4 Grand Slams this year is less than 20%...
So (if my guess is true), you think it is more likely that we are living in a simulation than it is that Fed will win all 4?
20% does sound very high and its not something I believe intuitively, but I can think of few examples where our intuitions are worse suited and I'm inclined not to trust them, at least "officially".
It might be worth noting that I think that even if we do live in a simulation, I think its most likely that we'll never know the difference.
I am neo...
and I own your soul.
So you'll be fine stu
Post a Comment