Do you believe in God

[katofumiko45]

any God from any religion, or not from a religion

 

[Lions303]

'God' is a little to strong for me, a 'higher power' would be accurate. Something going on beyond our comprehension <3

 

[kazatte]

i neither believe nor disbelieve in god, but i treat the universe as my higher power, so i guess that's a god?

 

[Tobacco]

I'm agnostic. There's a chance that a god exists shown by some philosophical arguments, some more or some less elaborate. But I'm convinced if some god exists, then he isn't the one from any particular religion, unless you get liberal with your theology.

 

[sadman1897]

I do

 

[music]

i have a lot of reasons to but i don't yet feel it . _.
might take time given i haven't been raised this way
i wish it were easier

 

[Mirelight]

I don't think there exists an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent creator that's the master of everything that ever could be. Every religion has different definition of god, I find all of them equally lacking in evidence but Abrahamic gods seems to be the most outlandish ones.

 

[NaturalBornNEET]

I believe in God and I believe God's nature to be absolute nothingness/emptiness. God is an experience not an Procrustean and Freudian sky daddy. "Sunyata" is the term I think best describes it.

i have a lot of reasons to but i don't yet feel it . _.
might take time given i haven't been raised this way
i wish it were easier

You're smart to place that amount of value on "feeling" it. A lot of people go their whole lives never having a spiritual/mystical experience of God but give their whole being to dogmatic control freak vocal cord vibrators and scribbles on ancient parchment paper and the sexually repressed do-nots it rambles on about, and they mistake these spoutings as actually being God, or at least they believe the spouting when it tells them they'll eventually meet God when they die under the condition you do what I tell you to do. Sad, how did I end up on this planet...

Alas don't listen to a word I say and take it seriously. I'm just feeling extra chatty tonight and I've recently came down from a few heavy psychedelic trips so I'm just interpreting them in a way that feels meaningful so I can feel good about life.

Still, I'd do LSD over going to church any day!

The only authority you can refer to is your own intuition so best to sharpen it, and to be open to and observant of what's around you so you can identify the good and smell the shit.

 

[kitkat9234]

I'm not sure what I believe in anymore…

 

[Someplace_nice]

I believe in all the gods and goddess are real, I don't like God I can personally vibe with Jesus, but God has said himself that he is a selfish god and no one shall praise any other as a god for they will feel his wrath. I don't vibe with that.

 

[EmptyBottle]

I believe in God, tho idk what God's intentions are.

While some people have stopped believing due to the amount of worldly suffering, I think that if suffering and evil is removed, the side effects could include loss of free will, which may be worse, if most people are good. Denying someone reasonable free will could be bad in itself too. At least heaven will likely not have suffering and evil, probably by weeding out all the evildoers who did evil on Earth, and providing the most powerful relief for suffering not caused by evildoers.

 

[ConstantPain]

No, I do not believe in any Gods. Even as a 3 year old child, I can remember hating being told to say my prayers before bed. It didn't make any sense to me and seemed pointless.
It's definitely a personal feeling of getting it or not. I grew up exposed to church and religion but didn't have it pushed on me. I read the bible, listened to sermons, even sang hymns but it was all pointless and pretend to me.
At any rate, God can not possibly be all knowing if we have any free will.

 

[EmptyBottle]

At any rate, God can not possibly be all knowing if we have any free will.

Come to think of it, I also wonder how much God knows... while he may know than all of the internet combined (eg: what happened before the big bang... what is the source code of DNA, not the compiled code... what best to do for the world, etc)... he may not know the future without having to travel thru time or so.

 

[oatmeal.n]

no. i both believe and prefer it that way. there is nothing that has ever been capable of changing my mind, books, speeches, churches. nothing.

 

[Cloud Busting]

I don't believe in a divine creator in the sense of an anthropomorphic person in the sky. Agree with @Mirelight that the abrahamic faiths are the most outlandish of all (though I don't think people who believe in these gods or faiths are stupid necessarily.)

I believe that the universe, itself, is a God. It is the divine. We exist because of it and we recycle our energy back into it in the end. It's us, we are the earth. The universe is spiritual in every way to me. All living things are interconnected.

If there's a god, either it's gender neutral or both genders. I think actually it's more likely there are multiple Gods of varying genders and also that nature has its own gods. Moon gods, sun gods, tree spirits. Honestly I like to view gods in a more metaphorical sense rather than as anything definite or literal. The gods I praise and revere and chant to I see symbolically

I take much inspiration from Buddhism, Shintoism, Native American spirituality, and pantheism. I'm not pagan nor Wiccan but respect their love of nature and enjoy many of their traditions.

 

[woofwag]

Not technically, but I think we are all gods :) your reality is your reality, and whatever you believe is real to you, so doesn't that make us all gods of our own realities? I am a follower of Folly, a goddess who explicitly does not exist within any official mythos (she was created by a philosopher named Erasmus in the 1500s, he wrote a book called "The Praise of Folly" and it's the best ever). Yet she is real to me, I follow her philosophies and I do praise her. I'm also a system, so while I don't have any faith I could ever get to talk to the goddess Folly herself, technically my brain could split off a Folly alter and I would have her living in my brain. My other friend has a Dionysus alter. So… we're gods then (at least for me I am in theory). Idk say what you will about that and how true it is. But even within the same sect of the same religion, people have their own different interpretations of god and how much reality they do/do not have control over.

Did you know that fungi can talk? They have a vocab of about 50 words they use to talk through their large interconnected channels of mycelium. They even have grammar structure. Some mycelium networks stretch for multiple miles. That's a kind of god to me. Something so deeply engrained into the earth, talking in ways we can never hear except through the measurements of their electrical impulses, an unseen unifying force providing resources to one another. And hey, ya never know, maybe they even have scripture of their own.

 

[LunarPyotr]

I don't believe in any Gods. I was christian till I quit the church after reaching the legal age in my country and if Jesus existed, he would not put me into existence to parents who are abusive, mistreat their children and steal from them.

For me, believing in gods comparable with falling in love with some fictional anime/cartoon character.
But I'm not a asshole, so I'm not arguing with anyone who believes in gods or some book because it's not worth it. And if anyone chooses to follow some rules given by some god or some book, then I will not judge or for example try to encourage them to try something made out of pig meat because it's wrong and a total dick move

 

[KlixxFoxe]

Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is real and our Savior. However, I'm quite skeptical of modern churches

 

[traumer]

I believe in myself :>

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I don't believe in any god, afterlife , reincarnation, computer simulation, mulitiverses, magic, ghosts , soul, other dimensions

there's no evidence nor any details for any of these

i only believe in things that there is a lot of evidence for , that can be observed or reasoned from first principles . any question that can break it like for example what are the details of a soul or afterlife where is the power source , why does a soul exists since the brain can do all thinking ? who created a soul? a lot these questions can also be asked for a god or any of the other theories i mentioned for which there is no evidence .

why hasn't anyone video taped a god soul or any of the above , magic etc? billions of video cameras, many instruments to detect energy fields magnetism but a god or soul has never been recorded. why are they hiding?

who am i , you? your experiences , your beliefs, what ? who is the real me at 1 day old , 1 year, 3 years old 7 years old, 20 , 21 ? identity keeps changing cause the brain is rewired every day the brain learns every day. i am not what i was at 1 day old or 2 years old . what was i then ? which me goes to the afterlife?

there's no evidence nor any details for any of these peices of fiction. there are 100s of thousands of novels where they admit are fiction but at least in these there are many details for example lord of the Rings , star wars etc that doesn't mean that there is a force or jedis cause someone wrote it. it shows that humans have an infinite ability to create fictional tales.

Your Brain Makes You a Different Person Every Day Our brains are wired for new sensations.

BY STEVE PAULSON OCTOBER 14, 2020 Brain “plasticity” is one of the great discoveries in modern science, but neuroscientist David Eagleman thinks the word is misleading. Unlike plastic, which molds and then retains a particular shape, the brain’s physical structure is continually in flux. But...

www.pacesconnection.com

all the above seem so against all the evidence i see when i read a book on the brain, evolution, cell biology ,, physics etc.

 

[sinfonia]

I don't think there exists an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent creator that's the master of everything that ever could be. Every religion has different definition of god, I find all of them equally lacking in evidence but Abrahamic gods seems to be the most outlandish ones.

Why do you think its outlandish? A lot of the metaphysical truths in the Bible, especially in the OT, are clothed in narrative and not easy to decipher. That's why there is (supposed to be) a church which can uncover these hidden truths and render them accessible to ordinary people.

Of course if you take the most blunt and two-dinensional intetpretation of the Bible its goiing to seem stupid and outlandish. If youre an intellectually honest person, though, you ought to engage with the most honest and authentic representatives of that tradition and not rely on your local nutjob evangelist preacher who takes everything in the Bible literally, word for word, to give you an accurate picture of the abrahamic faiths.

Some excerpts from a book called The language of creation:

Unlike modern science, traditional cosmology did not attempt to describe reality in terms of atoms, energy, and mechanical causality. Instead, most ancient cultures perceived the world in terms of spiriitual principles such as angels, demons, and mysterious sea monsters at the edge of the world. So before attempting to interpret a book like Genesis, it is important to understand why our current worldview is so different from that of the past.

In biblical cosmology, the world was created by the union of 'heaven' and 'earth,' where the first is the source of spiritual meaning, and the second is the source of physical expression. Thus, everything in this universe is analogous to a written word in a divine language.

In general, all the miraculous powers of Moses are miniature versions of God's powers in creation. Even beyond such miracles, every single event in the Bible should be interpreted as a re-presentation of cosmic principles on the human scale. Of course, this type of interpretation is completely foreign to materialism because the only acceptable form of explanation is mechanical causality.

The number seven represents the natural law of the cycle, and the seventh part of that cycle symbolizes the irrational period when the end transforms into a new beginning. It is the strange moment when the cycle finally "swallows itself" in the confusion of first and last. This type of inversion is forbidden by the hierarchical "law of space" during periods of work and productivity. However, during the critical seventh period, space loses its grip on reality as it returns to more primitive cyclical conditions. In the Bible, this "returning to irrationality" is often symbolized as flooding on the cosmic scale and as carnivals, Sabbaths, and Jubilees on the human scale.

In this context, the notion that Adam is "in the image of God" means that humanity is a symbol of the Creator within creation. Thus, Adam is the embodiment of divine knowledge in the world. Unlike regular knowledge, which involves the union of spirit and matter for created things, this type of knowledge transcends itself into a form of metacognition.

 

[rainatthebusstop]

Well, here's a take that'll piss people off:

I am unsure whether I believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions.

On a nice day, God doesn't exist, and conciousness is an unfortunate aberation that just happened to imbue some electrified meat with a maladaptive brain lobe that makes it hallucinate so good it can use that for survival. I know that's reductive, but at least in this way, conciousness ends when the neurotransmitters in my brain shut off and that's comforting.

On a bad day, He is real. An omnipotent, omniscient, always right thing that made humanity in His image and that is a thought that's horrible and frightening to me. Especially if it is invested in humanity and actively playing a hand in happenings all around.

Regardless, even if there is a God, there's no point in humans to speculate or bother trying to piece together what God wants or thinks or how God operates. So whether or not I believe, I cannot organize my life meaningfully around the concept of God because what and if God wants something from me is so far beyond me.

 

[Mirelight]

Why do you think its outlandish? A lot of the metaphysical truths in the Bible, especially in the OT, are clothed in narrative and not easy to decipher. That's why there is (supposed to be) a church which can uncover these hidden truths and render them accessible to ordinary people.

Of course if you take the most blunt and two-dinensional intetpretation of the Bible its goiing to seem stupid and outlandish. If youre an intellectually honest person, though, you ought to engage with the most honest and authentic representatives of that tradition and not rely on your local nutjob evangelist preacher who takes everything in the Bible literally, word for word, to give you an accurate picture of the abrahamic faiths.

Some excerpts from a book called The language of creation:

I read through your theological jargon, and this is the simplest way I could phrase it in plain English:

• Ancients saw the world differently than we do.
• Genesis should be read in terms of spiritual symbols, not scientific facts.
• Numbers and cycles (like the number 7) have mystical meanings.
• Adam as the image of God = humanity reflects divine knowledge.

All of these seem to be pretty common theological arguments, nothing groundbreaking once you strip away the fancy word maze. Pretty common from those who do not take the text in Bible literally, DEFINITLY more tolorable than the otherside but just as outlandish!

BUT this is not the reason I said Abrahamic gods feel "specially" outlandish, or any other god that claims to be an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient creator.First of all, the omni-God itself comes with a lot of contradictions. Can an omnipotent God create a stone He cannot lift? Can an omniscient God know of His own ignorance? If an omnipresent God is everywhere, why are some "closer" to Him while others are not?


And beyond what many apologists argue are just "linguistics," there are logical fallacies too. Many religions believe everything must have a creator — then who created this creator? They respond, "No, He IS the creator; He is outside time and space, so He does not need to be created." But if He is outside space, how does He exist? And if He is intelligent, thinking itself is a temporal task — the same goes for creation. Some say He is "inconceivable", then how can you be so sure of His existence? And there is much more…


This is why I will not argue with you about the intricacies of religious books, whether the Bible or the Quran, when I disagree with the very premise of the book. These books simply proclaim the existence of such a god as if it is a fact of life, as if it is a given. Unless you can prove that first, I will not go into discussing these texts intecritly.

 

[Malfunction]

No.

I could believe it if proof existed. But even if it were real, I could never support the atrocities committed by it and it's followers.

 

[womanactually]

There is no evidence so no. Even if there was evidence that it exists, knowing how much misery and evil it allows in this world, would you still pray to it?

 

[EmptyBottle]

who is the real me at 1 day old , 1 year, 3 years old 7 years old, 20 , 21 ? identity keeps changing cause the brain is rewired every day the brain learns every day. i am not what i was at 1 day old or 2 years old . what was i then ? which me goes to the afterlife?

there's no evidence

Maybe the most recent version, which is partially based on the previous version, all the way down the chain.

True, there isn't solid, scientific proof for or against the existence of a higher power. Only a variety of beliefs in the existence, non existence, and potential existence of a higher power.

 

[sinfonia]

• Ancients saw the world differently than we do.
• Genesis should be read in terms of spiritual symbols, not scientific facts.
• Numbers and cycles (like the number 7) have mystical meanings.
• Adam as the image of God = humanity reflects divine knowledge.

Obviously there's more to it than that. These are just a few random examples I picked because I thought they were comprehensible without further context. I did not intend on giving a full-range account of all that the book has to offer.

All of these seem to be pretty common theological arguments, nothing groundbreaking once you strip away the fancy word maze. Pretty common from those who do not take the text in Bible literally, DEFINITLY more tolorable than the otherside but just as outlandish!

Where are they common? They used to be commom, but are so no longer. These truths have almost completely vanished from the world. I'd be suprised if there were more than five people left in the catholic church who understood traditional symbolism--in the way it was meant to be understood.

A fancy word maze? You're clearly not making a serious effort at trying to understand these statements. They are written in the plainest and simplest terms one could express them.

It seems to me you're only responding to the things you've understood or are willing to understand, not the points I actually make.

Unless you can prove that first, I will not go into discussing these texts intecritly.

One more point in defense of abrahamism: You have to keep in mind that the god of israel had a twofold appearance. One is the brahmanical creator god who manifests himself in the form of evolutionary energy, and brings forth man as a creator within the creation; the other is the nationalist will-to-power god who ensures the survival of the 'chosen people' against its neighbourimg tribes, the god that Friedrich Nietzsche admired so much. Neither of these are 'outlandish' in any sense, but when we are talkimg about the truthfulness of abrahamic faith, our attention should rest on the former, not the latter.

 

[w1ngedpearl]

No. If God exists - he hates us all.

 

[Mirelight]

Obviously there's more to it than that. These are just a few random examples I picked because I thought they were comprehensible without further context. I did not intend on giving a full-range account of all that the book has to offer.

Where are they common? They used to be commom, but are so no longer. These truths have almost completely vanished from the world. I'd be suprised if there were more than five people left in the catholic church who understood traditional symbolism--in the way it was meant to be understood.

A fancy word maze? You're clearly not making a serious effort at trying to understand these statements. They are written in the plainest and simplest terms one could express them.

It seems to me you're only responding to the things you've understood or are willing to understand, not the points I actually make.




One more point in defense of abrahamism: You have to keep in mind that the god of israel had a twofold appearance. One is the brahmanical creator god who manifests himself in the form of evolutionary energy, and brings forth man as a creator within the creation; the other is the nationalist will-to-power god who ensures the survival of the 'chosen people' against its neighbourimg tribes, the god that Friedrich Nietzsche admired so much. Neither of these are 'outlandish' in any sense, but when we are talkimg about the truthfulness of abrahamic faith, our attention should rest on the former, not the latter.

Ok, I went thru the video you sent, and the answer for the second question seems to be the most relevant one, here's the transcript just to avoid back and fourth, please ignore the timestamps:

no again it isn't true there's 6:32 no evidence for the claims of 6:34 religion The crucial word here of course 6:36 is evidence I'm pretty sure when you use 6:39 the term you're thinking exclusively of 6:41 empirical evidence and thus buying into 6:44 the assumptions I was critiquing earlier 6:47 in responding to my first two 6:50 interlocutors like many people on 6:53 today's college campuses you're assuming 6:55 the only things we can truly know are 6:58 things we have some sort of physical 7:00 evidence for or for which we might apply 7:03 for some grant money things we can see 7:07 he taste touch or 7:09 smell either directly through one or 7:12 more of these five natural senses or 7:14 indirectly through the mediation of an 7:16 instrument like a microscope that's been 7:19 designed to magnify or amplify the reach 7:21 of those 7:23 senses what I'm not sure you've noticed 7:25 however is the statement the only things 7:29 we can truly know are things we have 7:31 some sort of physical evidence for is 7:35 not something there is or could be any 7:38 physical evidence 7:40 for the claim of the empiricist or 7:44 positivist is therefore just as 7:46 metaphysical as the claims of the 7:48 world's religions which he means to 7:51 deprecate for he asserts a truth or in 7:54 this case a falsehood about the way 7:56 things ultimately are and he does so in 7:59 a way presupposing some non-empirical or 8:03 super sensible Intuition or 8:07 Insight

---

From what I can infer, your statement suggests that claiming "there is no scientific evidence for God" assumes a belief in scientific evidence, and that at its core, whether one believes in science or God, both are forms of belief. You argue that the assertion "science is the best tool we have" cannot itself be proven scientifically.


Is that the argument you intended to present? In the future, I'd ask that you include both the source and a summary of your claim. I may interpret the source differently than you do, and it helps keep the discussion clear.


That said, here's my position: yes, science does rest on assumptions, like trusting our senses. But unlike religion, those assumptions are tested relentlessly against reality. Planes fly, medicine heals, rockets reach orbit. Religion hasn't demonstrated that same kind of repeatable success. That's why we privilege empirical evidence — because it consistently delivers results across time and cultures. A method that works reliably has stronger justification than faith alone.


Even if science can't prove its own foundations, that doesn't hand religion a free pass. Saying "you can't prove empiricism" doesn't prove God; it only shows that every system begins with some assumptions. Religion still has the burden of providing reasons for its claims if it wants to be taken seriously. Science is a method for testing claims, while religion makes untestable assertions. Equating them as similar "beliefs" is misleading.

One more point in defense of abrahamism: You have to keep in mind that the god of israel had a twofold appearance. One is the brahmanical creator god who manifests himself in the form of evolutionary energy, and brings forth man as a creator within the creation; the other is the nationalist will-to-power god who ensures the survival of the 'chosen people' against its neighbourimg tribes, the god that Friedrich Nietzsche admired so much. Neither of these are 'outlandish' in any sense, but when we are talkimg about the truthfulness of abrahamic faith, our attention should rest on the former, not the latter.

As for your defense of the Abrahamic God having a twofold nature, I'd point out that you're already presupposing a god exists when you make that statement. If you're offering that to defend against my critique that Abrahamic gods are outlandish, then perhaps it softens the claim, but my central issue remains with the omni-God concept. In practice, though, all gods are problematic given the lack of sufficient evidence.

Now, I don't think we need empirical evidence for every belief. What we do need are reasons — whether personal or objective. I hold many beliefs that I don't test scientifically, because it's impractical or unnecessary. For instance, my belief that my parents love me comes from the consistent ways they've acted toward me throughout my life. My belief that my friends won't stab me when I visit their houses comes from the trust they've built through repeated behavior. Likewise, my belief in empirical evidence is not blind faith, but based on its proven track record of reliability.

 

[sinfonia]

Ok, I went thru the video you sent, and the answer for the second question seems to be the most relevant one, here's the transcript just to avoid back and fourth, please ignore the timestamps:

---

From what I can infer, your statement suggests that claiming "there is no scientific evidence for God" assumes a belief in scientific evidence, and that at its core, whether one believes in science or God, both are forms of belief. You argue that the assertion "science is the best tool we have" cannot itself be proven scientifically.


Is that the argument you intended to present? In the future, I'd ask that you include both the source and a summary of your claim. I may interpret the source differently than you do, and it helps keep the discussion clear.


That said, here's my position: yes, science does rest on assumptions, like trusting our senses. But unlike religion, those assumptions are tested relentlessly against reality. Planes fly, medicine heals, rockets reach orbit. Religion hasn't demonstrated that same kind of repeatable success. That's why we privilege empirical evidence — because it consistently delivers results across time and cultures. A method that works reliably has stronger justification than faith alone.


Even if science can't prove its own foundations, that doesn't hand religion a free pass. Saying "you can't prove empiricism" doesn't prove God; it only shows that every system begins with some assumptions. Religion still has the burden of providing reasons for its claims if it wants to be taken seriously. Science is a method for testing claims, while religion makes untestable assertions. Equating them as similar "beliefs" is misleading.




As for your defense of the Abrahamic God having a twofold nature, I'd point out that you're already presupposing a god exists when you make that statement. If you're offering that to defend against my critique that Abrahamic gods are outlandish, then perhaps it softens the claim, but my central issue remains with the omni-God concept. In practice, though, all gods are problematic given the lack of sufficient evidence.

Now, I don't think we need empirical evidence for every belief. What we do need are reasons — whether personal or objective. I hold many beliefs that I don't test scientifically, because it's impractical or unnecessary. For instance, my belief that my parents love me comes from the consistent ways they've acted toward me throughout my life. My belief that my friends won't stab me when I visit their houses comes from the trust they've built through repeated behavior. Likewise, my belief in empirical evidence is not blind faith, but based on its proven track record of reliability.

I'm not trying to convince you that god exists, I'm just trying to convince you that these traditions are not outlandish by any means, but expressions of profound metaphysical ideas. Wether you think theyre true or not is another question.

Its mot about faith. Spirituality at its core is pure intellectual intuition. You know something because youve tsharpened your faculties to the point where you can clearly dissern the true from the untrue. Modern svience makes use of this intuition while simultaniously denying ots existenfe, or its ability to make any authoritative claims about reality.

Profane science doesnt really lay a claim on truth. Its ability to generate factual information and convert them into practically applicable solutions that have proven to be incredibly useful to humanity is undisputed; my point, or the point the video makesy, is that you cannot confidently say god doesnt exist if you havent explored all aspects of reality and are restricting truth to the realm of mere sensory experience.

Sorry if I havent resoondend to everything you said, I find these debates quite exhausting. The gap between what you and I believe is so great that its almost impossible to find common ground to build our arguments on.

Is that the argument you intended to present? In the future, I'd ask that you include both the source and a summary of your claim. I may interpret the source differently than you do, and it helps keep the discussion clear.

The sources is James Cutsinger, former professor and religious scholar. Himself an orthodox christian. Link to the full talk is in the description.