Welcome to Gaia! ::

As gigacannon has pointed out there are several different definitions of the word god. Here's my personal one: If god exists then it (nongender specific) is some agent which kicked off the universe. i.e. caused the big bang.
Anything else would be sheer conjecture, to create the universe then that agent would be outside of the universe, therefore we can know nothing about it, and cant ever know anything about it. So god could be an omnipotent observer and controller, with an aspect of itself everywhere right down to a random denizen of a higher plane that accidentally caused the universe to happen in much the same way as you or I would light a match. We can easily light the match but we dont need to be aware of every chemical reaction, "see" every group of molecules become another group of molecules and see each photon of light being emitted. Some people might say the universe is god.
All of these things are extremely interesting and endlessly fascinating to contemplate and argue over but ultimately unknowable, my beliefs on this topic change with my mood.
So my question is this, what the flying ******** has religion got to do with it? God might or might not exist, but how can some book written by men have any more importance to my beliefs on the ultimate creator than any other? Why would something that is so powerfull and amazing (or just some stupid person in some higher plane), come down to some bloke in a dress on some mountain somewhere and tell him all these rules about how we tiny insignificant humans are to live, which just happens to closely correspond to that very same dress wearing blokes ideas on how things should be run? This is akin to me appearing as a flaming fungus to the bacteria in my intestines and telling them from now on they aren't allowed to kill the other bacterias and not allowed to nick their stuff and wives... but even more rediculous.
The only connection I can see between god and organised religion is as a kind of managements signature on whatever load of tripe that one group of people are trying to make another group of people believe. "Look it must be true, god says so!" I can do that, "look the universe is actually completely flat and roughly the size of a hamster, its true because god told me. Why should you believe me? Well these guys elected me gods sole link on earth, you can believe them they are all good honest guys!*big cheesy grin and thumbs up*"...
Its palatably rediculous, I can honestly say I believe nothing that any religion has to say concerning the nature of god, that isn't to say I dont believe in god, but for me thats between me and and god and nobody is going to tell me that after I die my "immortal soul" is going to a figment of somebodies imagination for not going to a certain building every sunday...
Whats everybodies veiw on this? Other than very simple things like providing basic societal rules is religion good for anything? And what does religion have to do with god?

Sort of like the good old hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, where the answer to life the universe and everything is 42, but they dont know the question?
But that wasn't my point, I was just defining what I personally thought of as "God". i.e. the ultimate creator, an agent/agents/entity which created the universe as we see it, planets, stars, science, evolution and all that included. I was also pointing out that the existance of such an agent/entity was an "outside context problem", as unknowable to us as "What is outside the universe?" or "what do quarks look like?"

The entity I was describing in my last post was not a controller. It was a creator. The universe seems to run itself pretty nicely without any outside interferance. Why would control be necessary? And that ultimately was what I was asking, the major religions profess this view that "God" is directly involved in everything we do, and everything else for that matter. What I was saying was not only is this completely unproveable, but can actually be convincingly proved wrong. The beauty of the the paradigm where "god" created the universe and then had no further part in it apart from maybe observation (not going to even mention the uncertainty principle) is that because its an "outside context problem", the existance of "god", like schrodingers cat, has a certain probability of trueness. I think that the possibility that there might be a creator is better odds than there not being a controller.
Whats more divine to you? A system that runs itself under beautiful simple complex rules or a system that requires constant supervision?
And then if you believe this paradigm, it reduces religion to the power crazed rantings of madmen, with no other use than to let some people control the actions of others.
When I look at the universe and how it runs I cant help but be impressed, the way that very basic simple rules give rise to such exciting complexity is truly awe inspiring, and if something did create it than that thing is worthy of a lot of respect and admiration. But worship? Prayer? Begging something so ultimately huge and powerful to intervene in our miniscule little lives? I think not


I'm beginning to regret refering to that, because at the end of the day this is semantics, admittedly I may have been a bit free with my use of the word god but I did then define what I thought it was.

Lol, good point

But its as illogical to staunchly believe its not true when it could be, as to believe it is true when it might not be. I'm not saying that I completely 100% totally believe the universe was created, or even that I think its even remotely likely, but I dont dismiss the possibility out of hand.
But even if it was true and we could prove it I still dont get religion. Lets for the sake of argument presume that some genius managed to prove that the big bang was definately caused by something, what I dont get is how this leads into religion. I just cant see how most of the Jewish-christian, Islamic, buddhist, etc etc religions have any basis what so ever. I cant see how anybody can believe in these things and not be severly mentally retarded

Actively believing it's not true is kinda illogical. That's the difference between strong and weak atheism. Actively believing there is no God and Passively not believing in God because there is no evidence.
I come in the latter group.
I also don't dismiss the posibility of a created universe, but I assume it didn't happen due to the lack of evidence.

...Comfort? Fear? Some combination of the two? It seems a comfortable thought to think that there is a being who loves unconditionally. Who has a place for you, and everyone like you, after you die. That you will rise up to some sort of eternal paradise.
And fear that if you don't believe there will instead be eternal damnation in hell.


The classic carrot and stick.

It does seem like a "carrot and stick" to me. Do bad stuff, have a bad time later. Do good stuff, have a great time later. Good ----> Reward

Most people, in all areas of life, seem to amass in the herd mentality. i.e. believing in/liking the same things/people.
When they grow up in a small area, where everyone thinks almost the same things, dresses the same way, votes the same way, they see their own beliefs and ideas reflected around them in people very much like themselves. This affirmation that they are correct seems to be enough for many people to not have to think deeply about those beliefs, to not have to identify the flaws in those beliefs. Religious or othewise.

While some of us may think deeply about these things most poeple do not. And it is no surprise that they, therefore, think differently to us.