There is no god

[OldKingCole]

Inspired by another thread … I was surprised by the level of atheism professed … as I always though I was in a tiny, tiny minority.
would be interested to see the MN response.

IABU - there is a god
IANBU - there is no god

Go on then..

Many spiritual practices and philosophies work back to the idea that you are god, I hope you have yourself😃

Sorry, there didn’t appear to be any info in your link. Have you ever looked at the concept of a hyperactive agency detection device as a way of explaining gods/spirits? Largely an evolutionary tool.
www.humanreligions.info/hyperactive_agent_detection.html

it’s obviously tied in with

MN markup mangled the link. It's the wiki page on neuroscience of religion.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion

Plus that hyperactive agency detection just means that it can easily be attributed to other humans, rather than other unproven entities

I would say that the world makes far more sense when you see there is no god. The world doesn’t make any sense if there is a god (assuming god is the god that most people see him as and not some vague non interactive bit of flotsam).

Yes I’m well aware of that thanks, it’s an interesting concept and you can see how it potentially morphed into supernatural belief.

I guess the trouble with neuroscience, it would be quite easy for someone to argue that certain parts of the brain are activated by religious thought or the presence of the supernatural rather than creating it.

scientific theory isn’t great at analysing something other worldly. Scientific theory is designed to rationally explain everything

scientific theory isn’t great at analysing something other worldly.

Is there any method which can really analyse the 'supernatural'? You can certainly do controlled trials on the efficacy of prayer - but the poor results can be dismissed by religious people as being because you shouldn't put god to the test. (Of course not all theists believe in an interventionist god but many do)

I suppose so, but it's more the Gnostic and Christian terms together which don't sit right with me.

But then even with the supernatural ect, it would still be bound by reality, just that we may or may not understand those rules

But then even with the supernatural ect, it would still be bound by reality, just that we may or may not understand those rules

The god of the Bible doesn't seem to believe in rules. What's 'reality' if you believe in miracles?

Well reality could very well involve the spiritual realms. If the supernatural exists it is part of reality.

Maybe you’re referring to the corpreal
world. Well yes if the eternal pours itself into a meat suit then yes it would be bound by the laws which science has and has yet to discover. Thats not to say that the part that remains a divine spark could ever be discovered by the scientific method.

Thanks for the link, I'll endeavour to read it in full when time allows.

To me the essence of what it means to be a Christian, at its most basic level, is believing in Jesus' divinity, sacrifice and resurrection. Since Gnostics don't share these fundamental beliefs, I'm not sure they can be classed as Christian.
If I'm right in thinking, they also put a lot of emphasis on texts of questionable authenticity which are not found in the Bible.

As for the Catholics (and Protestants for that matter) killing people who thought differently to them - they obviously conveniently overlooked, "You shall not murder", "Let God be the Judge" and "Love your neighbour as yourself" to name just a few.
Don't forget they were setting each other ablaze for a couple of hundred years. Power, money, position, politics more likely being the driving forces, over religious differences.

No I don’t think it can, because it’s not what it was designed to do, scientific method was designed to observe the observable and replicable it relies on if there is x there will be y.

Most beliefs in the west will encompass some element of will, of God or the individual or the universe, purpose this, I think prevents observable replication.

of course the late Victorian era saw many attempts to apply science to spirituality, but it never really worked. This to some extent has been kept alive in ceremonial magic but, again it’s hard to prove as theurgy is often internal, and where external results are achieved it’s impossible to have a control or eliminate other causes.

there was an experiment on the effectiveness of tarot cards as a divination tool, where the cards pulled were swopped unknown to the reader. But of course if the cards were really a way to tell the future they would have known that was going to happen and arranged themselves accordingly.

I think the only way to know the truth is personal gnosis. Of course they might be different for everyone. We’re all in our own little universes so why shouldn’t the rules be different for each?

"We’re all in our own little universes so why shouldn’t the rules be different for each"

Because then it would be mind over matter, and the rise of the alternative humans, our "heroes" eg Claire Bennet, Nathan petrelli, etc

But that’s your view of what Christianity means (which happens to tie into that set out in the Nicene creed, which itself was born out of political motives and became the focal point of mainstream Christianity,

However, what we now call gnostics would have considered themselves Christian, however the view put forward in the Nicene creed would not have fit their cosmology, which was dualistic but they believed in The Christ of Christianity and the redemption and death and resurrection is described in suitable terms.

you view the bible as the only word of Hof, but there were a lot of similar texts doing the rounds at the time, scholars consider it likely that the “best sellers” were the ones to make it into the mainstream canon. There’s nothing questionable about the Gnostic texts, most of which were of about the same time as the mainstream canon. Arguably those found in nag Hamadi are more pure.

God not hof lol

Lol, who says I believe in anything supernatural?

Yes I’ve read some of those. There’s no conclusive proof though😀. Just peoples thoughts on life and the cosmos. There’s a million more out there just as convincing.

The thing is you will be drawn to what you want to believe.

you see, you’ve probably been drawn to a lack of meaning as a way of coping with a lack of control. Read some Jung, some Blake, some Plato. Some Plotinus

Maybe we are the heroes and our fall has been putting matter over mind or spirit, the inverted pentagram

But that’s your view of what Christianity means (which happens to tie into that set out in the Nicene creed, which itself was born out of political motives and became the focal point of mainstream Christianity,.....

That was formulated in 325AD so hundreds of years after the events. It would probably not have been at all clear during those centuries that Trinitarianism (an idea not really defined in the Bible) would become the orthodox position and other popular interpretations would be relegated to heresies. Luck or god? But if the latter why all the confusion, the different books and ideas of what they meant?

Go on then..

Huh? Please point us towards any evidence of there being a supernatural being who created us all?

There is none.

The way knowledge works is that things that are true can be tested and evidenced, and that rational people will believe them if/ when persuasive evidence is provided.

Lol, who says I believe in anything supernatural?

Yes I’ve read some of those. There’s no conclusive proof though😀. Just peoples thoughts on life and the cosmos. There’s a million more out there just as convincing.

The thing is you will be drawn to what you want to believe.

you see, you’ve probably been drawn to a lack of meaning as a way of coping with a lack of control. Read some Jung, some Blake, some Plato. Some Plotinus

I've read all of those.

I think you are confusing knowledge and rational analysis with unfounded belief.

The onus is on the person positing a belief to demonstrate plausible evidence that it is true. No religion has ever done this. Which is why conversations with religious people go around in circles: when their assertions are examined, it always becomes clear that there is no foundation other than "just because".

Philosophy is rational analysis, not stories that they demand you sign up to believing. Philosophy is about examining what we can and can't know, and accepting that, and finding a way to live with that uncertainty, rather than trying to make up a magical solution to it, if you can only believe hard enough. Philosophy/ science and religion are opposites.

@OMG12 :

www.equip.org/articles/the-gnostic-gospels-are-they-authentic/

The points I make are indeed detailed in the Nicene Creed but that's not the reason I believe them - these truths are all laid out in the Bible plain enough.

In summary, the poll is fairly conclusive.
An omnipotent god could easily have manpulated the result.

Exactly