Searching for God (2)

[Alan Burns]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.  From there we then have a multitude of different versions of what they do believe in.  What we can conclude from this is that human beings are incapable of discerning the truth using their own powers of deduction, because they can't all be right.

I accept that I am not able to figure all things out for myself, and human science is just scraping the surface of true reality with most fundamental things unexplained.  So I put my faith and trust in what I believe to be the divine revelations of the true God.

[Andy]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.

Your god isn't special. It's all gods.

[Outrider]

Yes, Matt and I come from the same place on this. There are so many misconceptions around about paganism that it is important for us to state our beliefs and practices - if you listened to some of the Christians here you'd think we were all satanists.

Ah, yes, we've had that accusation thrown at us in the atheist seats from certain segments of the Christian fold, too.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Part of my belief as a Pagan is that the deities, female and male, are immanent - present in all things.

Once again, wlking along Hounslow High Street I see a group of Christians whose 'stand', for want of a better word, is fronted with a banner asking "Have you found God? Have you found Jesus?"

To the second question my answer, if the question were put to me verbally, would be either that "I didn't know that he was lost" or that "he was hiding in the cupboard under the stairs playing chess with Harry Potter!"

To the first is a different matter. In my belief I do not need to find "God", as I believe that there is more than one and that a single deity of one sex or the other is not possible as without both sexes the deity is sterile.

Also I believe that to find my deities all I have to do is open my eyes and look around me at anything natural; or to look at just about anything as without the dieties humans would not be as creative as they are.

Maybe the question should be amended to ask "Have you found our God?" In which case my answer would be that I was brought up with him and ditched him at age 15.

But I cannot see the point of the question as some Christians, some on here, tell us that their God created everything so, surely, they could do the same as I and find their God just by opening their eyes and without the intercession of clerics or evangelicals.

I am not "attacking" Christian beliefs, I am asking for an explanation of something that I find inexplicable

Dear Matt, ( hi Matt )

Next time you meet those Christians ask them which flavour they are, Quaker, Methodist, CoE, CoS, Jehovah Witness, Baptist, Born Again, RC, Orthodox.

Weird lot us Christians.

Gonnagle.

[Owlswing]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.  From there we then have a multitude of different versions of what they do believe in.  What we can conclude from this is that human beings are incapable of discerning the truth using their own powers of deduction, because they can't all be right.

I accept that I am not able to figure all things out for myself, and human science is just scraping the surface of true reality with most fundamental things unexplained.  So I put my faith and trust in what I believe to be the divine revelations of the true God.

Again I say - Fine! - as long as you realise that what you are putting you faith in is just that, a matter of faith, a matter of faith that works for you just as my belief works for me.

The fact that you hold your faith does not give you the right to tell me that my faith is wrong or in any way in error.

[Shaker]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.

Actually non-believers by definition disbelieve in all gods, exactly as Andy has already said. Your interpretation of your idea of a god may be special to you, but it isn't to anybody else. It doesn't have to be. Atheists disbelieve all gods - that's what atheism means. Yours is just one more on the list of thousands. Non-belief in deities is the only thing that unifies ... well, non-believers in deities. That's it.

From there we then have a multitude of different versions of what they do believe in

Such as what? You neglected to say, for some reason. What are you referring to? Philosophical beliefs? Moral beliefs? Political beliefs?

What we can conclude from this is that human beings are incapable of discerning the truth using their own powers of deduction, because they can't all be right.

Actually no, you can't conclude that at all, for the reasons given. Atheists disbelieve in gods for a variety of reasons but the essential ones, I should say, are that they find the very concept absurd and, in my case, not even wrong since there's no coherent definition of the thing. It's no good saying that there is or isn't evidence for this or that thing when that thing doesn't even have a clear, unified definition to start off with. Definition comes first, then evidence (or lack thereof) second, and in the case of gods it's abundantly clear that it's every man for himself in terms of what they purport to believe in.

Once you get past disbelief in deities, of course atheists hold different ideas about different things - people do have opinions, you know; it has been known. But the fact that people do so means precisely that - that they have opinions - not that your particular take on what you think is reality is thereby more likely to be true. And again, you forgot to say what these other things that atheists believe in actually are, in your opinion.

I accept that I am not able to figure all things out for myself, and human science is just scraping the surface of true reality with most fundamental things unexplained.

As yet. Given the staggering success of the scientific method or the scientific outlook in explaining things so far (and I do mean really, actually explaining things, not pretending to explain them as religions do) then my confidence that science will keep on finding out more and more about the universe is not a faith but a confidence both based upon and, arguably more importantly, justified by literally countless past successes in finding out what's the case.

So I put my faith and trust in what I believe to be the divine revelations of the true God.

Isn't it just amazing how you lot always have such incredible good fortune to end up believing in the true god and not any of those other false ones? You never hear any religio say: "I believe in this particular brand of/interpretation of a god, but it's the wrong one," do you?

Funny, that.

[Outrider]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.

I wouldn't classify the pagans, Muslims, Jews etc. as 'non-believers', I'm pretty sure we'd agree on that, as you make clear yourself with the very next sentence...

From there we then have a multitude of different versions of what they do believe in.

What we can conclude from this is that human beings are incapable of discerning the truth using their own powers of deduction, because they can't all be right.

That's a reasonable conclusion, yes.

I accept that I am not able to figure all things out for myself, and human science is just scraping the surface of true reality with most fundamental things unexplained.

OK.

So I put my faith and trust in what I believe to be the divine revelations of the true God.

Wait, what? You've already established that human 'deduction' is a poor methodology for establishing truth, and you've established that science is a valid method that has not yet completed its work - why accept the unreliable over the reliable?

O.

[Owlswing]

Dear Matt, ( hi Matt )

Next time you meet those Christians ask them which flavour they are, Quaker, Methodist, CoE, CoS, Jehovah Witness, Baptist, Born Again, RC, Orthodox.

Weird lot us Christians.

Gonnagle.

Oh Gonnagle (do you play the mouse pipes, by the way?) I do not have to look at Christians to find diversity of factions!

Paganism is often denigrated as being a 'pic-n-mix' religion.

However, in a vast majority of cases, that is exactly what draws people to it. The fact that as you read more about Pagan belief, as you meet more Pagans and talk over what they believe, as take part in ritual with other groups of Pagans, you find things that resonate withg you, personally, and adjust the way in which you practice your religion.

To my knowledge there are only three pagans on this forum, one, seemingly, at present, inactive - Horsethorn, Rhiannon and myself and we are completely individual in our practices and beliefs.

The only difference is that in Paganism the mindset is a 'live and let live' attitude of acceptance, in Christianity each branch seems to consider itself to the only one that is the 'right' or 'true' one. A demonstration of this is the fact that Hope and Sassy cannot even agree on whether Christians should base their belief on both Testaments (Sassy) or only the New one (Hope)!   

[ippy]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.  From there we then have a multitude of different versions of what they do believe in.  What we can conclude from this is that human beings are incapable of discerning the truth using their own powers of deduction, because they can't all be right.

I accept that I am not able to figure all things out for myself, and human science is just scraping the surface of true reality with most fundamental things unexplained.  So I put my faith and trust in what I believe to be the divine revelations of the true God.

But you don't actually know for certain whether you've got it right or not, that's a far more rational admission to make after some of the flights of fancy type scribbling you have presented here on this thread Alan.

ippy

[Shaker]

The only difference is that in Paganism the mindset is a 'live and let live' attitude of acceptance, in Christianity each branch seems to consider itself to the only one that is the 'right' or 'true' one. A demonstration of this is the fact that Hope and Sassy cannot even agree on whether Christians should base their belief on both Testaments (Sassy) or only the New one (Hope)!

That's certainly borne out by my experience of pagans/ism.

Monotheism is to blame for the attitude of Christians you describe.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Matt,

No arguments from me old son.

And what you describe is only scratching the surface of what ails Christianity, my point ( a small point ) is that we can be as diverse as paganism.

Ask a Quaker, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, God or Son of God? you will receive ( I think ) three very different answers.

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

Looking at the posts of non believers on this forum, the one thing they can agree on is their disbelief in the Christian God.  From there we then have a multitude of different versions of what they do believe in.  What we can conclude from this is that human beings are incapable of discerning the truth using their own powers of deduction, because they can't all be right.

For every correct belief there may be billions of incorrect beliefs; for every closed question there may be only one right answer but billions of incorrect answers.  Ergo, we should only accept propositions that are well justified by the evidence; all others are unlikely to be correct

I accept that I am not able to figure all things out for myself, and human science is just scraping the surface of true reality with most fundamental things unexplained. So I put my faith and trust in what I believe to be the divine revelations of the true God.

So do Muslims, of course. 

But then you end up with the ridiculous situation with half of the 4 billions believers scarcely engaging at all with the other half who put their trust in a different revelation of God. If we could all ditch this trust business and learn to be evidence-led instead just think how much better this world would be without all those unnecessary layers of incommunication between different faith groups.

[Leonard James]

So do Muslims, of course. 

But then you end up with the ridiculous situation with half of the 4 billions believers scarcely engaging at all with the other half who put their trust in a different revelation of God. If we could all ditch this trust business and learn to be evidence-led instead just think how much better this world would be without all those unnecessary layers of incommunication between different faith groups.

Common sense is not very welcome to religious types.

[Rhiannon]

You don't need evidence, just some humility.

[Leonard James]

You don't need evidence, just some humility.

Believing something exists for which there is no evidence serves no purpose for me, but I accept that some other people feel the necessity.

[Rhiannon]

You don't need evidence, just some humility.

Believing something exists for which there is no evidence serves no purpose for me, but I accept that some other people feel the necessity.

It's not so much a necessity; it's our experience. The humility is in accepting you are experiencing it subjectively and also in accepting it isn't right for everyone.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Matt,

No arguments from me old son.

And what you describe is only scratching the surface of what ails Christianity, my point ( a small point ) is that we can be as diverse as paganism.

Ask a Quaker, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, God or Son of God? you will receive ( I think ) three very different answers.

Gonnagle.

Ask a Quaker and you could get 'God? No, light' as you answer - or even 'God? No, Gods' or 'God? No, no God.'

[Rhiannon]

Yes, Matt and I come from the same place on this. There are so many misconceptions around about paganism that it is important for us to state our beliefs and practices - if you listened to some of the Christians here you'd think we were all satanists.

Ah, yes, we've had that accusation thrown at us in the atheist seats from certain segments of the Christian fold, too.

O.

I thought you were led astray by Satan rather than choosing to worship the horned one.

Although there is widely assumed to be an atheo-pagan conspiracy, both in the wider world and on this very forum. We did set up a forum coven to accommodate it at one point - we decided Tesco's car park was best for our naked rituals as it's convenient for cakes and ale, usually has plenty of greenery and we could go inside if it rained. Gordon composed us some special flopping banjo music and we were going to use the park and ride to go shopping afterwards - bonus!

[Shaker]

You don't need evidence, just some humility.

Believing something exists for which there is no evidence serves no purpose for me, but I accept that some other people feel the necessity.

It's not so much a necessity; it's our experience. The humility is in accepting you are experiencing it subjectively and also in accepting it isn't right for everyone.

That only tends to work well outside of monotheism, though. If you believe that there's just the one deity, then it follows that there's only one set of rules and only one way of being right. Anything and everything else is at the very best error - forgivable error possibly if you're a bit of a bleeding heart wishy-washy flip-flop type but error all the same - and at worst explicit heresy. And I'm sure we know how heretics have always and in some cases still are treated. Monotheism is the problem. It has built into it by definition an innate tendency towards rigid absolutism and dogmatism. It's not as though anybody really needs evidence of this but just in case, take a look at some of the central statements made by the three Abrahamic religions. I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods before me. There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. I am the way, the truth and the life; nobody comes to the Father but through me. In each case the message is exactly the same: none of that, this and this only.

This is nothing that the ever-prescient David Hume didn't say two and a half centuries ago, but it's true nevertheless.

[Rhiannon]

You don't need evidence, just some humility.

Believing something exists for which there is no evidence serves no purpose for me, but I accept that some other people feel the necessity.

It's not so much a necessity; it's our experience. The humility is in accepting you are experiencing it subjectively and also in accepting it isn't right for everyone.

That only tends to work well outside of monotheism, though. If you believe that there's just the one deity, then it follows that there's only one set of rules and only one way of being right. Anything and everything else is at the very best error - forgivable error possibly if you're a bit of a bleeding heart wishy-washy flip-flop type but error all the same - and at worst explicit heresy. And I'm sure we know how heretics have always and in some cases still are treated. Monotheism is the problem. It has built into it by definition an innate tendency towards rigid absolutism and dogmatism. It's not as though anybody really needs evidence of this but just in case, take a look at some of the central statements made by the three Abrahamic religions. I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods before me. There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. I am the way, the truth and the life; nobody comes to the Father but through me. In each case the message is exactly the same: none of that, this and this only.

This is nothing that the ever-prescient David Hume didn't say two and a half centuries ago, but it's true nevertheless.

Abrahimic faiths have a problem for sure, but there are monotheists who aren't one-true-wayers. Even within Christianity - one of my best friends is a Christian and she thinks we're on the same journey by different paths.

[Outrider]

You don't need evidence, just some humility.

Believing something exists for which there is no evidence serves no purpose for me, but I accept that some other people feel the necessity.

It's not so much a necessity; it's our experience. The humility is in accepting you are experiencing it subjectively and also in accepting it isn't right for everyone.

That only tends to work well outside of monotheism, though. If you believe that there's just the one deity, then it follows that there's only one set of rules and only one way of being right. Anything and everything else is at the very best error - forgivable error possibly if you're a bit of a bleeding heart wishy-washy flip-flop type but error all the same - and at worst explicit heresy. And I'm sure we know how heretics have always and in some cases still are treated. Monotheism is the problem. It has built into it by definition an innate tendency towards rigid absolutism and dogmatism. It's not as though anybody really needs evidence of this but just in case, take a look at some of the central statements made by the three Abrahamic religions. I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods before me. There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. I am the way, the truth and the life; nobody comes to the Father but through me. In each case the message is exactly the same: none of that, this and this only.

This is nothing that the ever-prescient David Hume didn't say two and a half centuries ago, but it's true nevertheless.

Abrahimic faiths have a problem for sure, but there are monotheists who aren't one-true-wayers. Even within Christianity - one of my best friends is a Christian and she thinks we're on the same journey by different paths.

I think you'll find, if you put her through a properly calibrated soul-ometer, that she isn't a 'True Christian'^TM...

[Leonard James]

...one of my best friends is a Christian and she thinks we're on the same journey by different paths.

Journey to what/where?

[Rhiannon]

...one of my best friends is a Christian and she thinks we're on the same journey by different paths.

Journey to what/where?

We would say 'spiritual fulfilment'. Other answers are available.

[Leonard James]

...one of my best friends is a Christian and she thinks we're on the same journey by different paths.

Journey to what/where?

We would say 'spiritual fulfilment'. Other answers are available.

That's the 'need' I was talking about. Having been on both sides of the fence, I can assure you that for me, spiritual fulfillment is the here and now.

[Rhiannon]

...one of my best friends is a Christian and she thinks we're on the same journey by different paths.

Journey to what/where?

We would say 'spiritual fulfilment'. Other answers are available.

That's the 'need' I was talking about. Having been on both sides of the fence, I can assure you that for me, spiritual fulfillment is the here and now.

I don't know if she sees 'heaven' as some final goal; for me the path and the goal are the same thing. I don't think there's a rainbow at the end, so like you the fulfilment has to be in the present moment.