My take on the concept of god

[sreedevkkumar]

Humans have always hated mysteries and unanswered questions. Questions like 'who we are?',  'why are we here?' etc have always puzzled them. The concept that someone or something created us and we all are it's subjects gave us easy answers to such highly complex questions. It's basic human nature to look for the easiest way out, and the concept of god was that easy way out. I do have to agree that 'god' is a beautiful theory which is also disprovable, but that doesn't make it true. If someone said that we are living in a virtually stimulated world like the matrix, there is no way to disprove them but we don't believe them either unless there is solid proof. Religion is such a theory, we can't disprove it,  that doesn't mean we should believe it either.
I would like to hear all of your views on this subject.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Your critical thinking is well based.  But emotional rejection of theism is OK also.

[sreedevkkumar]

Your critical thinking is well based.  But emotional rejection of theism is OK also.

Yes it is. But unless we start thinking critically we will not be able to defend our views when questioned upon.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Humans have always hated mysteries and unanswered questions. Questions like 'who we are?',  'why are we here?' etc have always puzzled them. The concept that someone or something created us and we all are it's subjects gave us easy answers to such highly complex questions. It's basic human nature to look for the easiest way out, and the concept of god was that easy way out. I do have to agree that 'god' is a beautiful theory which is also disprovable, but that doesn't make it true. If someone said that we are living in a virtually stimulated world like the matrix, there is no way to disprove them but we don't believe them either unless there is solid proof. Religion is such a theory, we can't disprove it,  that doesn't mean we should believe it either.
I would like to hear all of your views on this subject.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

I quite agree.  BTW, how can I address you other than 'sreedevkkumar'--that plays havoc with my fingers? :))  Basically, that is how I see it.

But what do you mean by 'cannot disprove god'?  What would disproving for you look like?  Or how could god in your eyes be disproved?  Do you think that 'lack of evidence' constitutes evidence?  For example, if I were to claim that  the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.  I have seen her.  I cannot show you a picture or anything she has written or hoof prints or unicorn hair or any other empirical proof of her existence.  But I can personally attest to her existence for I would not lie about such a thing--and a guy I know saw her too!  Would the lack of any empirical proof be evidence that she exists or not?

[Baruch]

Just pointing out irony ...

Sri Dev Kumar means ... Mr Son of Gods ;-)

[aitm]

Not related at all to this thread but at a Staples today the check out guy was a young Middle eastern guy about 21 and had a batman belt on. No kidding, a batman belt so I paid and he said thank you and I said your welcome Rajesh. I hope he took it as a compliment.

[Baruch]

Not related at all to this thread but at a Staples today the check out guy was a young Middle eastern guy about 21 and had a batman belt on. No kidding, a batman belt so I paid and he said thank you and I said your welcome Rajesh. I hope he took it as a compliment.

West Asia and South Asia aren't the same.  Rajesh is probably too South Asian.  I am sure you weren't rude, but if you want to be rude to a South Asian guy, call him Vijay ;-(

We have a ME guy at a local restaurant here, about the same age.  I treat him like the waiter he is (with respect), just like I treat the waitresses.

[sreedevkkumar]

I quite agree.  BTW, how can I address you other than 'sreedevkkumar'--that plays havoc with my fingers? :))  Basically, that is how I see it.

But what do you mean by 'cannot disprove god'?  What would disproving for you look like?  Or how could god in your eyes be disproved?  Do you think that 'lack of evidence' constitutes evidence?  For example, if I were to claim that  the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.  I have seen her.  I cannot show you a picture or anything she has written or hoof prints or unicorn hair or any other empirical proof of her existence.  But I can personally attest to her existence for I would not lie about such a thing--and a guy I know saw her too!  Would the lack of any empirical proof be evidence that she exists or not?

Just call me Sree :)

Btw by 'disproving god' I mean that just like how we demand for evidence whenever someone says that God exists,  those who believe in God too will demand for evidence when we say that God doesn't exist, and we can't give them any evidence because we don't have any just like how they don't have any to prove that God exists. That's why I said that 'god' is a beautiful 'theory' that can't be disproved.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[sreedevkkumar]

Just pointing out irony ...

Sri Dev Kumar means ... Mr Son of Gods ;-)

Ikr?? [emoji23] [emoji23]
As I said in my thread in Introductions,  my parents are religious..

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[sreedevkkumar]

Not related at all to this thread but at a Staples today the check out guy was a young Middle eastern guy about 21 and had a batman belt on. No kidding, a batman belt so I paid and he said thank you and I said your welcome Rajesh. I hope he took it as a compliment.

Hahaha :')
But Rajesh is from India,  not middle east though..

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Just call me Sree :)

Btw by 'disproving god' I mean that just like how we demand for evidence whenever someone says that God exists,  those who believe in God too will demand for evidence when we say that God doesn't exist, and we can't give them any evidence because we don't have any just like how they don't have any to prove that God exists. That's why I said that 'god' is a beautiful 'theory' that can't be disproved.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

Thanks, Sree.  So, I take it you don't think the absence of evidence is evidence.  Then, the Invisible Pink Unicorn has as much claim to being the creator of all as God does.  Neither can be disproved--how does one produce empirical evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn--or God.  Absurd, you say.  Nobody believes in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  And there are all kinds of writings and rituals to support god.  What if somebody produced a book written by the Invisible Pink Unicorn and a set of sacred rites and rituals--then they would be equally supported.  Neither would be supported by any empirical proof.  There is also the same amount of proof for Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan or Superman--or any number of other fictional characters.  Hell, there are many who think Betty Crocker is or was a real person.  She has dozens of cookbooks published--of course she is real.  People have actually written to her or called her for help in the kitchen--and they were answered.  But not by Betty, since she was a creation for a company.  So, Sree, I see the lack of any empirical proof---any at all!--that any god exists or existed.  There is no evidence--and no evidence means no god/gods. 

[sreedevkkumar]

Thanks, Sree.  So, I take it you don't think the absence of evidence is evidence.  Then, the Invisible Pink Unicorn has as much claim to being the creator of all as God does.  Neither can be disproved--how does one produce empirical evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn--or God.  Absurd, you say.  Nobody believes in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  And there are all kinds of writings and rituals to support god.  What if somebody produced a book written by the Invisible Pink Unicorn and a set of sacred rites and rituals--then they would be equally supported.  Neither would be supported by any empirical proof.  There is also the same amount of proof for Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan or Superman--or any number of other fictional characters.  Hell, there are many who think Betty Crocker is or was a real person.  She has dozens of cookbooks published--of course she is real.  People have actually written to her or called her for help in the kitchen--and they were answered.  But not by Betty, since she was a creation for a company.  So, Sree, I see the lack of any empirical proof---any at all!--that any god exists or existed.  There is no evidence--and no evidence means no god/gods.

Well I think that absence of evidence is evidence, that is one of the reasons I became an atheist. What I meant to say was that religious people doesn't consider it as an evidence and there isn't any other evidence to convince them.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

This is the inevitable consequence of growing up.  Most people never grow up.  If King Rama and King Hanuman were walking the streets in Kerala, you would be a fool not to believe.  Stories of "long ago" are entertaining and educational for little children.  Parents and society conspire to keep the youth in perpetual childhood, it is easier for us to control you then, just as the authorities strive to maintain control over the citizens.  Usually the Golden Age is put in the past, and the threatening Iron Age is put in the future.

Freud would say, that the concept of gods is the product of childhood anxiety regarding fathers mostly and mothers secondarily.  The sustainment of belief lies in your own family (as you know) and the origin is in families like yours, many generations ago, modified as society has changed.  Another cause is how parents want to socialize their children to the society that their parents belong to.  We don't want our children (and my extension ourselves) labeled as outcasts ... something very clear in India, but is really everywhere.

[sreedevkkumar]

This is the inevitable consequence of growing up.  Most people never grow up.  If King Rama and King Hanuman were walking the streets in Kerala, you would be a fool not to believe.  Stories of "long ago" are entertaining and educational for little children.  Parents and society conspire to keep the youth in perpetual childhood, it is easier for us to control you then, just as the authorities strive to maintain control over the citizens.  Usually the Golden Age is put in the past, and the threatening Iron Age is put in the future.

Freud would say, that the concept of gods is the product of childhood anxiety regarding fathers mostly and mothers secondarily.  The sustainment of belief lies in your own family (as you know) and the origin is in families like yours, many generations ago, modified as society has changed.  Another cause is how parents want to socialize their children to the society that their parents belong to.  We don't want our children (and my extension ourselves) labeled as outcasts ... something very clear in India, but is really everywhere.

I totally agree with you.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Well I think that absence of evidence is evidence, that is one of the reasons I became an atheist. What I meant to say was that religious people doesn't consider it as an evidence and there isn't any other evidence to convince them.

Sent from my HM NOTE 1LTE using Tapatalk

You are soooooo right about that.  That is one way I see theists being different than a secular person--the theist 'believes' he/she is right and considers their 'sincerely' held beliefs as all the proof they need.  In fact, the more fundamentalist they are the more they see believing in god in the face of facts to the contrary as a hallmark of their belief.  A secular person is more likely to 'think' or reason about why they do not believe in god and search for and take into account actual empirical proof or lack of empirical proof in their thoughts and decisions on the subject.