Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Diversita]

I gave up watching the news a long time ago. My experience comes from the street. From looking at people, from the very bottom where one homeless person will strip another homeless person of all their belongings to the very top where even our politicians are saying their need for more money is more important than another person's need to eat.

Feelings aside, annecdotes about what you’ve admitted is the very bottom doesn’t make a strong representation of humanity as a whole

Well, as someone who's been that second homeless person a couple of times, I can say it's not just anecdotal. Also, I did say from the bottom to the top, meaning that I was talking about more than just those at the bottom. Also, by bottom, I don't mean bottom in value. I mean bottom in feudal hierarchy.

[Alvecia]

Feelings aside, annecdotes about what you’ve admitted is the very bottom doesn’t make a strong representation of humanity as a whole

Well, as someone who's been that second homeless person a couple of times, I can say it's not just anecdotal.

That’s almost definitionally an anecdote

[Diversita]

Well, as someone who's been that second homeless person a couple of times, I can say it's not just anecdotal.

That’s almost definitionally an anecdote

Really? I see. Invalidation. Although hardly a zero, still a notable example of what I'm talking about. Regardless, I think it's pointless to continue this so...assume what you will.

[Alvecia]

That’s almost definitionally an anecdote

Really? I see. Invalidation. Although hardly a zero, still a notable example of what I'm talking about. Regardless, I think it's pointless to continue this so...assume what you will.

There’s a reason anecdotes aren’t particularly valid.
If I walked to the shop and met someone who said hello, I would not therefore conclude that all of humanity is generally polite and agreeable.
Your personal experiences do not hold up as valid representation of the entire human population as a whole.

[Diversita]

Really? I see. Invalidation. Although hardly a zero, still a notable example of what I'm talking about. Regardless, I think it's pointless to continue this so...assume what you will.

There’s a reason anecdotes aren’t particularly valid.
If I walked to the shop and met someone who said hello, I would not therefore conclude that all of humanity is generally polite and agreeable.
Your personal experiences do not hold up as valid representation of the entire human population as a whole.

I'd disagree, unless you were to assert that somehow the entire world just had it in for me specifically out of all the seven billion out there. But, then, if that's the case, why does practically every person I meet have a similar experience? It can't be something just focussed on my town because I've lived in a number of towns and met a number of people in those towns. It can't be just my country because I've had a lot of online friends. So...maybe you can help me out here?

[Alvecia]

There’s a reason anecdotes aren’t particularly valid.
If I walked to the shop and met someone who said hello, I would not therefore conclude that all of humanity is generally polite and agreeable.
Your personal experiences do not hold up as valid representation of the entire human population as a whole.

I'd disagree, unless you were to assert that somehow the entire world just had it in for me specifically out of all the seven billion out there. But, then, if that's the case, why does practically every person I meet have a similar experience? It can't be something just focussed on my town because I've lived in a number of towns and met a number of people in those towns. It can't be just my country because I've had a lot of online friends. So...maybe you can help me out here?

Well that would imply the universe had agency, but otherwise that’s mostly correct. It is entirely possible you’re just one of the unlucky ones, so to speak. Statistically, someone has to be.
As the popular quote goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Diversita]

I'd disagree, unless you were to assert that somehow the entire world just had it in for me specifically out of all the seven billion out there. But, then, if that's the case, why does practically every person I meet have a similar experience? It can't be something just focussed on my town because I've lived in a number of towns and met a number of people in those towns. It can't be just my country because I've had a lot of online friends. So...maybe you can help me out here?

Well that would imply the universe had agency, but otherwise that’s mostly correct. It is entirely possible you’re just one of the unlucky ones, so to speak. Statistically, someone has to be.
As the popular quote goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

So I'm guessing that if you were the only one on the planet who hadn't had similar experiences, it'd still be anecdotal. Thing is, if you want to see what the real world is like, you don't have to just observe my life. Nip into your local town and look around. Unless you're fortunate enough to be living in a real life Truman Show, you can see it if you're just willing to look below the cloud layer. Look at the street corners. Look in the back alleys. Look at what your local government is doing. Look at what your national leader is doing. It's not hiding from you. You only have to look.

[Alvecia]

Well that would imply the universe had agency, but otherwise that’s mostly correct. It is entirely possible you’re just one of the unlucky ones, so to speak. Statistically, someone has to be.
As the popular quote goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

So I'm guessing that if you were the only one on the planet who hadn't had similar experiences, it'd still be anecdotal. Thing is, if you want to see what the real world is like, you don't have to just observe my life. Nip into your local town and look around. Unless you're fortunate enough to be living in a real life Truman Show, you can see it if you're just willing to look below the cloud layer. Look at the street corners. Look in the back alleys. Look at what your local government is doing. Look at what your national leader is doing. It's not hiding from you. You only have to look.

If I was the only one in earth then my sample size of 1 would match the population I’m trying to measure. 1.
However, you aren’t the only one on Earth. So your example experience of 1 is not representative of the rest of the 7,699,999,999 people on the Earth.
It may be that your experiences are absolutely correct, but your single anecdote does not support this for all the reasons mentioned.
This is how basic statistics work.

[Andsed]

But on that basis faith in humanity and faith in God are qualitatively different and not really directly comparable. We can also attribute certain acts to humanity with a degree of certainty, enabling us to establish a feeling of trust based on said acts. Trying to do that with God, on the other hand, is much more difficult.

Yeah except faith in humanity is rarely ever a faith in anything supported by the evidence. I mean, if we were to say that we can trust that humanity is ever improving, look at the world around you. It might be more technological but it's no less barbaric than it was two thousand years ago. But we still have faith in the great strides at human development.

Bullshit. Yes humanity is still not perfect and many horrible things occur but to suggest it is not better than it was in the past is just stupid. Look at things like human rights laws that have done things like make slavery illegal for most nations in the world. Stuff like that would never be done in say the ancient era. Humanity is still fucked up but we are no where near as bad as we used to be.

[United New England]

Actually, many religions around the world share important ideas about morality and spirituality. Mystics is particular tend to demonstrate similarities regardless of culture. Of course they sometimes disagree, but people aren’t perfect.

Two things:
1) Humans being human are going to automatically share some ideas about morality. We all have the same intrinsic social instincts. Having said that,
2) Cultures tend to be pretty divergent unless and until they rub up against one another. The Mesoamericans didn't move towards monotheism at all, and didn't approach a deeper knowledge of God's love and the oneness of being so much as they moved towards, "Blood for Huītzilōpōchtli!"

You might want to learn a little bit more about Native Mesoamerican religion.

I found Section 2a particularly interesting:

At the heart of Nahua philosophy stands the thesis that there exists a single, dynamic, vivifying, eternally self-generating and self-regenerating sacred power, energy or force: what the Nahuas called teotl (see Boone 1994; Burkhart 1989; Klor de Alva 1979; Monaghan 2000; H.B. Nicholson 1971; Read 1998; Townsend 1972). Elizabeth Boone (1994:105) writes, "The real meaning of [teotl] is spirit -- a concentration of power as a sacred and impersonal force". According to Jorge Klor de Alva (1979:7), "Teotl ...implies something more than the idea of the divine manifested in the form of a god or gods; instead it signifies the sacred in more general terms". The multiplicity of gods in official, state sanctioned Aztec religion does not gainsay this claim, for this multiplicity was merely the sacred, merely teotl, "separated, as it were by the prism of human sight, into its many attributes" (I. Nicholson 1959:63f).

Teotl continually generates and regenerates as well as permeates, encompasses, and shapes the cosmos as part of its endless process of self-generation-and--regeneration. That which humans commonly understand as nature -- e.g. heavens, earth, rain, humans, trees, rocks, animals, etc. -- is generated by teotl, from teotl as one aspect, facet, or moment of its endless process of self-generation-and-regeneration. Yet teotl is more than the unified totality of things; teotl is identical with everything and everything is identical with teotl. Since identical with teotl, they cosmos and its contents ultimately transcend such dichotomies as personal vs. impersonal, animate vs. inanimate, etc. As the single, all-encompassing life force of the universe, teotl vivifies the cosmos and its contents. Lastly, teotl is both metaphysically immanent and transcendent. It is immanent in that it penetrates deeply into every detail of the universe and exists within the myriad of created things; it is transcendent in that it is not exhausted by any single, existing thing.

Nahua metaphysics is processive. Process, movement, becoming and transmutation are essential attributes of teotl. Teotl is properly understood as ever-flowing and ever-changing energy-in-motion -- not as a discrete, static entity. Because doing so better reflects teotl's dynamic and processual nature, I suggest (following Cooper's [1997] proposal that we treat "God" of the mystical teachings of the Jewish Kabbalah as a verb) that we treat the word "teotl" as a verb denoting process and movement rather than as a noun denoting a discrete static entity. So construed, "teotl" refers to the eternal, universal process of teotlizing.

What if all of those many deities are flawed interpretations of different aspects, facets, or roles of an infinite god that is not fully comprehensible to the human mind? We can’t even fully understand ourselves, so I highly doubt that anyone has ever fully comprehended any deity that may exist.

Same problem: provide evidence for your assertions, or they're bullshit.

What assertions are you talking about? My first sentence was a question and my second one was an opinion. There’s no need to be so rude.

[Forestavia]

At the heart of Nahua philosophy stands the thesis that there exists a single, dynamic, vivifying, eternally self-generating and self-regenerating sacred power, energy or force: what the Nahuas called teotl (see Boone 1994; Burkhart 1989; Klor de Alva 1979; Monaghan 2000; H.B. Nicholson 1971; Read 1998; Townsend 1972). Elizabeth Boone (1994:105) writes, "The real meaning of [teotl] is spirit -- a concentration of power as a sacred and impersonal force". According to Jorge Klor de Alva (1979:7), "Teotl ...implies something more than the idea of the divine manifested in the form of a god or gods; instead it signifies the sacred in more general terms". The multiplicity of gods in official, state sanctioned Aztec religion does not gainsay this claim, for this multiplicity was merely the sacred, merely teotl, "separated, as it were by the prism of human sight, into its many attributes" (I. Nicholson 1959:63f).

Teotl continually generates and regenerates as well as permeates, encompasses, and shapes the cosmos as part of its endless process of self-generation-and--regeneration. That which humans commonly understand as nature -- e.g. heavens, earth, rain, humans, trees, rocks, animals, etc. -- is generated by teotl, from teotl as one aspect, facet, or moment of its endless process of self-generation-and-regeneration. Yet teotl is more than the unified totality of things; teotl is identical with everything and everything is identical with teotl. Since identical with teotl, they cosmos and its contents ultimately transcend such dichotomies as personal vs. impersonal, animate vs. inanimate, etc. As the single, all-encompassing life force of the universe, teotl vivifies the cosmos and its contents. Lastly, teotl is both metaphysically immanent and transcendent. It is immanent in that it penetrates deeply into every detail of the universe and exists within the myriad of created things; it is transcendent in that it is not exhausted by any single, existing thing.

Nahua metaphysics is processive. Process, movement, becoming and transmutation are essential attributes of teotl. Teotl is properly understood as ever-flowing and ever-changing energy-in-motion -- not as a discrete, static entity. Because doing so better reflects teotl's dynamic and processual nature, I suggest (following Cooper's [1997] proposal that we treat "God" of the mystical teachings of the Jewish Kabbalah as a verb) that we treat the word "teotl" as a verb denoting process and movement rather than as a noun denoting a discrete static entity. So construed, "teotl" refers to the eternal, universal process of teotlizing.

This perspective is really interesting. This seems like a very accurate portrayal of how I understand God.

It got me wondering something... if that static thing which "was, is, and always will be" is simultaneously ever-changing? Perhaps the one static thing we can count on is change itself. Or is oneness static while multiplicity evolves infinitely?

[Byzconia]

I don't believe in any gods because I don't see any reason to. As simple as that.

[Australian rePublic]

The Bible as it exists now is still accurate.

Yes, the book that describes a flat earth with dragons and the like is totally accurate.

Also, creationism is supported by science.

No, buddy, it really really isn't. A blog post saying that the theory of evolution by natural selection is non-falsifiable sort of betrays its total disregard for actual science.

Which Bible passage/s say/s that the Earth is flat?

[Dazchan]

Yes, the book that describes a flat earth with dragons and the like is totally accurate.

No, buddy, it really really isn't. A blog post saying that the theory of evolution by natural selection is non-falsifiable sort of betrays its total disregard for actual science.

Which Bible passage/s say/s that the Earth is flat?

Matthew 4:8.

[Geneviev]

Which Bible passage/s say/s that the Earth is flat?

Matthew 4:8.

That doesn't say the earth is flat.

[Farnhamia]

Which Bible passage/s say/s that the Earth is flat?

Matthew 4:8.

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" Is. 40:22

And this page, https://www.philipstallings.com/2015/06 ... -from.html.

[Dazchan]

Matthew 4:8.

That doesn't say the earth is flat.

Primary school level geometry says it does.

[Byzconia]

Which Bible passage/s say/s that the Earth is flat?

Matthew 4:8.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..." Matthew 4:8 (KJV). Am an atheist, but I don't think this really supports a "flat earth" interpretation. Some Flat Earth Christians use it as such, but you could also easily argue that it's just a metaphor (as with most of the NT). There are several verses in both the OT and NT that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat Earth, but to my knowledge the Bible never openly says it.

[The Free Joy State]

Matthew 4:8.

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" Is. 40:22

And this page, https://www.philipstallings.com/2015/06 ... -from.html.

Oh bloody hell. Read the first two paragraphs of the link... just couldn't continue.

Matthew 4:8.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..." Matthew 4:8 (KJV). Am an atheist, but I don't think this really supports a "flat earth" interpretation. Some Flat Earth Christians use it as such, but you could also easily argue that it's just a metaphor (as with most of the NT). There are several verses in both the OT and NT that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat Earth, but to my knowledge the Bible never openly says it.

The thing with Bible interpretation (any religious text, probably) is that most any quote can be interpreted in several ways (moreso, if you return to the Hebrew and Greek).

However, I'd guess that most flat earthers (and, generally, creationists) aren't those who seek alternate interpretations and read religious texts as a collection of metaphor and stories, but literalists (who believe that the Bible is the first, last and unchanging absolute truth). One fragment of one passage like that are clung to as signs that they were right.

As they are by the Flat Earth Society, who boast they "have members all around the globe".

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Farnhamia]

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" Is. 40:22

And this page, https://www.philipstallings.com/2015/06 ... -from.html.

Oh bloody hell. Read the first two paragraphs of the link... just couldn't continue.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..." Matthew 4:8 (KJV). Am an atheist, but I don't think this really supports a "flat earth" interpretation. Some Flat Earth Christians use it as such, but you could also easily argue that it's just a metaphor (as with most of the NT). There are several verses in both the OT and NT that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat Earth, but to my knowledge the Bible never openly says it.

The thing with Bible interpretation (any religious text, probably) is that most any quote can be interpreted in several ways (moreso, if you return to the Hebrew and Greek).

However, I'd guess that most flat earthers (and, generally, creationists) aren't those who seek alternate interpretations and read religious texts as a collection of metaphor and stories, but literalists (who believe that the Bible is the first, last and unchanging absolute truth). One fragment of one passage like that are clung to as signs that they were right.

As they are by the Flat Earth Society, who boast they "have members all around the globe".

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

I know, Joy, but it has all the bells and whistles of a good creationist site.

[Dazchan]

Matthew 4:8.

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..." Matthew 4:8 (KJV). Am an atheist, but I don't think this really supports a "flat earth" interpretation. Some Flat Earth Christians use it as such, but you could also easily argue that it's just a metaphor (as with most of the NT). There are several verses in both the OT and NT that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat Earth, but to my knowledge the Bible never openly says it.

Awfully convenient to claim that the bits that reflect poorly on its accuracy are “just a metaphor”.

[Yenzlund]

I was raised Christian, and always felt His presence. However, I was never really close to God until recently. I learned a lot during a demonic attack (which was experienced by both a friend, and my wife). He explained a lot of things that pertained to me, to me. He changed my entire way of looking at things. I'd become a pretty extreme nationalist, and he told me it didn't matter, that He was in charge, and to just focus on Him, my walk with Him, and doing His will (generally helping others when the opportunity arises). I still have trouble with accepting a lot of it, but I have changed quite a bit. The Lord is love, and when he says to love your enemy, he means it. He is the one that deals with it. The world, the physical, none of it matters. Only God and His will, matter.

I know this isn't going to convince anyone. But if you want to know God, seek him out honestly. Not to prove his existence, but because you want to know Him, as a son knows his father.

He often uses my children to teach me lessons about myself. It is a great feeling, every time he speaks to me.

[Kowani]

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..." Matthew 4:8 (KJV). Am an atheist, but I don't think this really supports a "flat earth" interpretation. Some Flat Earth Christians use it as such, but you could also easily argue that it's just a metaphor (as with most of the NT). There are several verses in both the OT and NT that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat Earth, but to my knowledge the Bible never openly says it.

Awfully convenient to claim that the bits that reflect poorly on its accuracy are “just a metaphor”.

I feel like mentioning the irony.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

[Byzconia]

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..." Matthew 4:8 (KJV). Am an atheist, but I don't think this really supports a "flat earth" interpretation. Some Flat Earth Christians use it as such, but you could also easily argue that it's just a metaphor (as with most of the NT). There are several verses in both the OT and NT that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat Earth, but to my knowledge the Bible never openly says it.

Awfully convenient to claim that the bits that reflect poorly on its accuracy are “just a metaphor”.

Maybe, but there's been a very long debate in Christianity as to whether the Bible should be taken literally. The position of most mainstream Churches is that the Bible is infallible, but not strictly literal (i.e. the Bible is a "perfect source of morality" rather than a history book). Obviously this is a silly claim, but that's neither here nor there. Your comment makes it sound like Biblical literalism is the consensus and "just a metaphor" is a side-step, when the reality is almost the exact opposite.

[Australian rePublic]

Now, before you get all shitty with me for not replying to your post quickly enough. Take these things into consideration:

1. I have a life outside of this thread
2. I'm a human being, I'm prone to errors. I might miss a post here or there.
3. I'm a human being. I can get tired of debating the existence (or lack there of) of God at times. Considering you were defending Blatt for getting tired of theological discussions, surely you can give me the same slack, especially when I'm outnumbered 17+:1
4. It takes time to form an argument, especially when you have 6 or 7 different unrelated points going at once
5. I wake up in the morning, and there's another 3-4 pages. I can't keep up with that
6. I have a life outside of this thread.

I'll get to you when I get to you. Stop demanding quick responses