I believe that God EXISTS, but I don't really care!

[Guest]

I don't want assurances; I'm just naturally curious. And given my experiences, I think presence is a far better model than absence.

What do I get from it? What, like the power to SMITE authority?

[BlackCap]

I am also open to the possibility that there is no afterlife but, 1) would like to think that there is and, 2) think that evidence suggests it. I say this because I believe that consciousness is basically a collection of electrical impulses in the brain and, from what I have heard, electricity cannot be destroyed but only transferred from one location to another.

Well, number one is fine but number two reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of neuroscience. For off, it's not really electrical impulses that create conciousness. If that were so, we'd be moving much faster than we do. What happens is electrochemical stimulation. Conciousness is the emergent property of the complex neurointeractions in our brain, once our brain ceases to function...well, I think you know where I do from here.

As for the rest of your comments, they're quite interesting. I haven't known all that many deists of your type. I know many I could classify as deists but most of them are really new agey.

[Mind_Cemetary]

For off, it's not really electrical impulses that create conciousness. If that were so, we'd be moving much faster than we do. What happens is electrochemical stimulation. Conciousness is the emergent property of the complex neurointeractions in our brain, once our brain ceases to function...well, I think you know where I do from here.

And, like I said to draelith, I am willing to concede that I could very well be completely out to lunch on this whole thing. However, my stance as a matter of principle is not to rule out the possibility of an afterlife until I find out definitively for myself. In any case, it is by no means a certainty that there is no afterlife.

As for the rest of your comments, they're quite interesting. I haven't known all that many deists of your type.

I am finding that my views on these sorts of matters seem to be unique. A lot of people get confused by them because they don't neatly fit into any one category. I tend to confuse religious types, atheists, and deists alike who find it difficult to understand that I have fused belief, non-belief, the destruction of God, and the acceptance of God into a single viewpoint.

[BlackCap]

And, like I said to draelith, I am willing to concede that I could very well be completely out to lunch on this whole thing. However, my stance as a matter of principle is not to rule out the possibility of an afterlife until I find out definitively for myself.

Sorry, I didn't see that post until after I posted. I just looked at your OP and gave my reply.

In any case, it is by no means a certainty that there is no afterlife.

It depends on what you mean by certainty. If we both agree that...
A.) consciousness is brain based.
B.) brain ceases to function at death.
...I doubt we can disagree on the conclusion (but then again I'm probably misreading you).

I tend to confuse religious types, atheists, and deists alike who find it difficult to understand that I have fused belief, non-belief, the destruction of God, and the acceptance of God into a single viewpoint.

It's quite an amzing feat to unify all those contradictory properties. It'd be nice to hear exactly how you did it.

[Mind_Cemetary]

It depends on what you mean by certainty. If we both agree that...
A.) consciousness is brain based.
B.) brain ceases to function at death.
...I doubt we can disagree on the conclusion (but then again I'm probably misreading you).

I mean empirical evidence rather than inference. We can hypothesize all we like based upon our (arguably limited) understanding of science, but until we actually kick the bucket ourselves, we can't really no for sure.

I tend to confuse religious types, atheists, and deists alike who find it difficult to understand that I have fused belief, non-belief, the destruction of God, and the acceptance of God into a single viewpoint.

It's quite an amzing feat to unify all those contradictory properties. It'd be nice to hear exactly how you did it.

Well, it actually isn't as complicated as you might think. The core of my beliefs is basically to take nothing for granted; in other words that, however likely or unlikely we might consider something to be, at least be open to the possibility that the contrary might be true. Until just recently, I thought it was most likely that existence could be explained by a single conscious entity that I called "God". However, after having really considered this, I have come to the conclusion that, rather than a conscious entity, it is more likely that a system of logic and order is woven into the very fabric of the universe. This would mean that existence is the result of neither conscious effort OR coincidence, but that the precondition of Nature when not interfered with is to tend toward order rather than chaos. This has recently started to make more sense to me than a conscious entity although, as a matter of principle, I am still open to it. Furthermore, I am also open to the possibilty of pure coincidence, but I consider this to be probably LESS likely than a conscious entity.

Now, with regard to the destruction or acceptance of God, I am in favour of destroying God (assuming it would be possible) on the CONDITION that God's NATURE is as depicted in the Bible or most other religious texts. As I have said, I do not believe that God is "omnipotent" and, hence, do not believe that he is capable of sending people to either "Heaven" or "Hell" (neither of which I believe exist). When I believed in an actual conscious entity that created the universe, I would have argued that, such a being is NOT omnipotent and is capable of neither "rewarding" nor "punishing" people. However, in the event that I were find out that this was incorrect, I would consider it necessary to DESTROY such a God rather than accept it's existence (even if the ultimate result of attempting to do so was my OWN destruction rather than God's). However, whereas now I tend to believe in a system of inherent logic rather than a conscious entity, my views have been altered somewhat. I now suspect that there is no conscious entity at all, be it omnipotent or otherwise. I would be willing to accept a God that was NOT omnipotent, but still doubt it's existence. Furthermore, I should underline the fact that I am againstthe idea of an omnipotent God is precisely because I consider myself an anarchist. I will not tolerate an authoritarian God in the same sense that I will not tolerate an authoritarian political ruler.

So, to sum up the way in which I have fused belief and non-belief, I should make clear that the way in which I do so has recently changed: Formerly, I believed that a conscious entity existed but was open to the possibility of this not being the case. Now, I do not believe in a conscious entity at all (although remain open to the possibility), yet do not believe that existence is a coincidence. This, of course, is because of my belief in a system of inherent logic (to which I am open to being INCORRECT).

As for the manner in which I have fused the destruction and acceptance of God, this too has changed with my uncategorical rejection of a conscious entity in favour of inherent logic. Formerly, I believed in a conscious entity that was NOT omnipotent, was open to being wrong and, if I was, believed it necessary to destroy God. Now, I believe in no conscious entity but, if one existed, would be in favour of destroying It on the condition that it was omnipotent.

[jacobhaller]

What do people mean by "destroying God"? Especially given that the action seems to depend on conditions (an omnipotent, conscious God) which would make it both futile and archic behavior.

[Mind_Cemetary]

What do people mean by "destroying God"?

If you're asking what it would actually entail, I honestly have no idea. However, in general terms, I would define destroying God as taking actions necessary to ensure that God no longer exists.

Especially given that the action seems to depend on conditions (an omnipotent, conscious God) which would make it both futile and archic behavior.

I guess my point is simply that an omnipotent God, in my opinion, would not have the right to exist. Whether or not it would actually be possible to destroy God is another matter altogether. In any case, it seems to me an omnipotent God is, by nature, a tyrannical God. This would make It's destruction justifiable even if impossible.

[Jacob Haller]

Of course an omnipotent being could screw me over, and there would be nothing I could do. As an anarchist, I don't like trusting in or depending on anyone else's sense of right and wrong. It's my life to live, my choices to make...

I guess the real question is whether anarchism is about power in itself - in which case divine omnipotence would be the greatest evil in airtha - or about human relationships and exploitation - in which case power contains the potential for evil but does not contain evil in itself.

I think we could compare this tendency in anarchism to a tendency in fundamentalism which see free will as a great evil. Why? Because free will enables evil acts; therefore, these people reason, it causes evil acts.

[Guest]

(Step)


I get the discussion, but I fail to see the why to it?



If you picture 'God' as the universe (omnipotence kinda implies this) or even the natural complexity forming tendancies of matter, or even life, or anything but the stereotypical Religious meaning (I mean, new, rather than old pagan) then there doesn't seem to be a problem. I'd be all for picturing a 'God' (prefer Goddess, but that's my own bias admittedly) if it helped human beans sort out their relation to the world~ sadly, most haven't, thus the original cry for the 'death of God' (to return to Nietzsche).

Nietzsche's cry was for the death of a human described/proscribed God, nothing more- the (as described in the discussion) need/desire for an absolute adjudicator/authority. In that sense, I do think (to mind_cemetary) that the death of God is a good thing~ but the metaphysical aspects, being determined by humans, are hardly indicative of what may/may not be out there.


I'd advise getting some bubble-making stuff (or some fairy liquid & a coat-hanger bent into a circle) to get a good analogy for the universe~ although it depends on blowing some smoke in there to show whole galaxies! Even better, I'd recommend searching out a tree, or plant, and spending a few hours examining the ecology of it, from the largest you can see to the smallest (magnifying glasses are good for this!). Its a serious thing~ once you've seen, from your own perspective, a teaming ecology in something so (relitively) small, you'll see the foolishness of those who try to discuss/state authoritively what 'God' is!

[Nancy]

It was the best site about anaschism that I've eva visited. Seriously it made me think a lot of my consept about the Anarchism. I decided to follow this doctrine because I couldn't believe in any fucking word my parents told me about religion (you know, heaven, hell, angels...) and I was looking for some kind of religion and 'thought' to guide me. I'm feeling completely lost in my life and I think that now I can understand betta my way and try to see things in a betta way too. Before I see this website I was kinda in 'conflict' with myself because I thought that if I want to be an anarchist I couldn't believe in God (I've always believed that there was a superior power taking care of us).Now I can see that there anarchist people who also believes in God.This is GREAT. THANK YOU. You saved a life.

[DontEatEggs666]

I don't think god exists. I think humans have very limited minds, so when there are unexplained things, we like to believe god did it. As we learn more and more, we think god does less and less. We believe there has to be a creator, because we don't understand how stuff could be here without one. Early religious people couldn't explain things, so they said it was god. Modern religious people can explain things, so they don't think god did it but they do think god does the stuff we can't understand. Does this make any sense?

[Sophia]

To me, it's more interesting to ask why we should submit to the biblical god even if the fucker DOES exist as described in the Torah/OT. If he does exist, we owe him no loyalty whatsoever. In fact any decent women and men of conscience would arguably have a duty to resist his "Might Makes Right" authority with every ounce of our strength. I'm opposed to the Biblical patriarchal narrative that they apply "as above, so below" not out of dogmatic positive atheism but more from a consistent anti-authoritarian perspective.