what is god to you/what do you revere?

[ponygirl01]

To me God is someone who holds my life in his hands everyday. and i trust that he will only do what is best for me and my family. i have looked to him in the worst times in my life and prayed that he will listen. and he did. so, to me God is someone who loves you no matter what you have done, said or thought. Someone who you cna be mad at and will never judge you for it. and someone who you can yell at and cry to, and will understand without retaliation. unconditional love.

[OhmyGod!]

Is the question of whether there is a god or not the topic of this thread? I thought that it was about what the word means to each of us... and THAT is something to which the meaning of religion in general to society in general does directly relate.

If it is fair game to analyze the motives of the religious, then it's equally important to analyze the motives of the irreligious, isn't it?

Regarding the logic of evolution, why should evolution be more logical than devolution? If the universe started out simple, then grew more complex, and that is merely the result of chance, then wouldn't it ultimately just start to fall apart? Even if you cannot accept the traditional personality of "God," can you acknowledge the possibilty of something divine at work in existence?

The question of this topic is: 'what is god to you', religion to society is something different in my eyes...the next direct question to answer this topic question would be: 'does god exist to you and why'. God is nothing to you when you do not believe in god. And because without answering the question if there is a god you cannot even answer the question of religion and society...(because there would be no organised religion if there was no one believing in god).

I don't understand what you mean by: 'motives of the irreligious'...

And I never said that evolution is merely the result of chance...it's the opposite! There is no chance in evolution...genes don't survive because of chance...they survive because of very a difficult (but logical and proven) process! And also the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with chance...if there was only 0.0000001 different kind of gasses in the beginning...there would be no life. It may be a process of billions of years before this universe could finally begin as it began...we don't know (yet) how the universe got this way and if there have been other universes, will be other universes et cetera! No chance here!

And even if it all had begun out of a simple chance...it also wouldn't automatically mean it would just fall apart in the end.

I cannot acknowledge the possibility of something divine at work in the existence. Well maybe if you explained to me what you exactly mean by 'something divine' (I take it as you mean: ‘something godlike’). But why should I acknowledge something divine...if there is no evidence, it is not logic and it really does not make sense...that would be the same if I said to you: 'can you acknowledge that there are invisible purple leprechauns living in the woods of Europe?'
I give you this: If anyone can give me evidence (hard evidence) of something divine...I would admit I was wrong and accept the truth without a problem!

I also would like to say that this is not my mother tongue…so if something is not clear I would love to explain again! And I do not want to disrespect anyone. Everyone should be free to believe what they want! (as long as respect anyone else too!).

[AngelZ]

When I think about God, I am reassured that I am not alone in this world.

[pathoftheturtle]

God is nothing to you when you do not believe in god.

God is a word. The question of precisely what that word means, logically, should come before the question of whether or not it is true that whatever the word might refer to exists. Even if you don't believe in God, (or gods) the concept still is something to you, if you recognize the fact of belief in other individuals. That is what I'm talking about with 'motives of the irreligious.'

...maybe if you explained to me what you exactly mean by 'something divine' ...

divine /adjective/ supremely good

(Now you just have to figure out what "good" means.)

[OrganGrinder]

I was raised to believe in an all-knowing, loving god. I followed religious teachings and creeds until my mid twenties. I had religious experiences and even had a supposed miracle happen to me.

I am now in my mid thirties and a firm atheist though I don't identify with atheists in any "club" or "brotherhood".

Knowledge is indeed the fruit which we were warned away from. It leads to a beautifully religious free existence.

I believe in Man.

[OhmyGod!]

God is a word. The question of precisely what that word means, logically, should come before the question of whether or not it is true that whatever the word might refer to exists. Even if you don't believe in God, (or gods) the concept still is something to you, if you recognize the fact of belief in other individuals. That is what I'm talking about with 'motives of the irreligious.'

divine /adjective/ supremely good

(Now you just have to figure out what "good" means.)

Yeah...you are right...that should be the first question: 'what is god?' and then: 'what is god to you?' And later the question what god to society is.

I understand now what you mean by motives of the irreligious. But I believe there are no motives of irreligious people...it's a personal motive. Not like with organised religion...that's a group’s motive with certain group rules. The only thing non-god-believers have in common with non-god-believers is that they do not believe in god (in perspective with this discussion...sure they will have other things in common).

And I don't believe in something supremely good. Like I also don't believe in something supremely evil. And like you said: 'what is good?'. That is maybe one of the most subjective matters in this world (without evil there wouldn't even be a good). So it is in my opinion ridiculous to say something is supremely good...& how do you measure something like that?

[pathoftheturtle]

Naturally, I agree that the motives of the irrelgious are personal. My point is that the same is true of the religious. Believers don't all have too much in common, either. You don't have to belong to any organized religion to believe in God or something divine, and while it may be true that some believe because they want to belong, some others who do belong decided to only after having first believed. On top of that, there are many very different religions, with lots of highly diverse sects. You can'r stereotype god-believers.

The concept of good can, indeed, be very subjective. What benefits one often ends up harming another. But, then, how do you account for compassion?
It's quite difficult for any one person to define "greater good," but I am one person, at least, who does believe in it.

...without evil there wouldn't even be a good...

Perhaps, but the existence of evil certainly doesn't have to imply the non-existence of good. I don't mention this point to be argumentative. My motive here is not really to criticize satisfied atheists. Another thing that I agree with is your earlier comment that

...Everyone should be free to believe what they want! (as long as respect anyone else too!).

I am mostly posting just for those who may have had a loss of faith which they regret. I only wanted to let them know that someone cares.

[dividedgrlofmine]

I firmly believe in God. I believe that everything does happen for a reason, although that reason may never be entirely clear. I believe that good will be rewarded, evil will be punished, and that the point of life is to make connections with out fellow man.

[OhmyGod!]

Naturally, I agree that the motives of the irrelgious are personal. My point is that the same is true of the religious. Believers don't all have too much in common, either. You don't have to belong to any organized religion to believe in God or something divine, and while it may be true that some believe because they want to belong, some others who do belong decided to only after having first believed. On top of that, there are many very different religions, with lots of highly diverse sects. You can'r stereotype god-believers.

The concept of good can, indeed, be very subjective. What benefits one often ends up harming another. But, then, how do you account for compassion?
It's quite difficult for any one person to define "greater good," but I am one person, at least, who does believe in it.Perhaps, but the existence of evil certainly doesn't have to imply the non-existence of good. I don't mention this point to be argumentative. My motive here is not really to criticize satisfied atheists. Another thing that I agree with is your earlier comment that
I am mostly posting just for those who may have had a loss of faith which they regret. I only wanted to let them know that someone cares.

Yeah, I was talking about the organised religions when I talked about the non-personal-motives.

How do I account for compassion? (Somehow I feel stereotyped as an atheist here... Like I am evil to the bone and know no compassion) Just because it's not the most logical human behaviour, does not mean there is no logic explanation. There are biological explanations and social-psychological explanations for compassion. I make it sound so cold...but just because we want something to be divined...does not make it automatically divine. I do not want to belittle compassion. Compassion is extra-ordinary!

I am posting because I love to find answers and ask every question one can think of. I don't like it when there are subjects that are non-discussable...

[PatInTheHat]

But, then, how do you account for compassion?

How do I account for compassion?

Just because it's not the most logical human behaviour, does not mean there is no logic explanation. There are biological explanations and social-psychological explanations for compassion. I make it sound so cold...but just because we want something to be divined...does not make it automatically divine. I do not want to belittle compassion. Compassion is extra-ordinary!

Compassion is a learned behavior.


And I think it is logical.
What could be more logical, than in order to receive anything resembling compassion, good will, friendlyness or anything of any emotional/social value, you must be able to display the same capability if you wish to participate in that society.
True pychopaths not quite being an exception to the rule, but they learn to mimic those behaviors if they're to become successfully intergrated..think Ted Bundy...they probably even had compassion at some point, until something shorted out the circuits.

Put a child in a box with no human contact, with nothing but the essentials of life and force it to live, you'll have a creature not capable of compassion.
If it has it hasn't known any, it won't have any.

We start our compassion primer with the love & caring of a mother to her child from the moment of birth...well, thankfully most of us.
Then family & society (we are social animals afterall) has to do it's part too, but the mother is the best start, as it's unconditional, the rest teaches us the differences in/of degrees.

Those that don't have that from the beginning, hopefully find (or are thankfully found) by someone who can instill those needed nuggets of emotional education and support.
I also don't think there's anything clinically cold about that, but rather one of the warmest & most wonderful things we are capable of, not to mention the great apes, who often seem to put us to shame in this department.

I do agree though, cmpassion is the ultimate schnizzle!