Freethought Nation

What about God?

Is there anything about God which did not come from books or man studying history and other teachings by a man/woman?

I have to ask this question because I am not convinced that anything on this site or any other site including Samuel Harris etc gives any real proof as to why mankind believe in God or that there is no God.

Thanks for any reply you may deem suitable to make.

Puzzler.

footnote: I hope this will be received with the good intentions it has been written.

Thanks. P.

I think that's a good question, however, you need to direct it towards those who actually make the claim for the existence of god(s), which would be theists. Theists hold the responsibility for providing the burden of proof. In my view, theists have failed utterly in fulfilling their obligations to substantiate their claims.

We don't make a positive claim for the existence of god(s) here - we demonstrate with valid evidence that many religious beliefs originate from natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, planets, stars, constellations and more like fire, water, air, aether, lightning etc.

We are mostly freethinkers here who embrace the mythicist position:

Or here's a pantheist perspective:

Here's a great article giving more explanation:
Astrotheology of the Ancients

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

The question of why. Well, if you read through the links provided in the above post then you'll at least be familiar with what religious symbolism entails in terms of the astrotheology function of it. To venture deeper into it all, the objects of the natural universe - sun, moon, stars, elements, etc. - were viewed as material effects stemming from inner spiritual causes. Here's a link to an audio series about this very thing: Astrotheology Series Part 1 The sun was not a God to the learned, but rather the most appropriate symbol for the mystery within the sun which sends energy out of the sun and down to the earth to support and sustain all life. They were trying to follow the energy of life and existence 'deep down' to where it fades off into an absolute mystery for the human mind to contemplate. The deep mystery that transcends all thinking is what God is meant to represent at the very bottom of the concept itself. It's the mystery of existence everywhere present in and beyond our range of perception and this great mystery was expressed through world mythologies aimed at personifying natural phenomenon in storyline settings.

From everything I've learned so far, the entire history and evolution of God comes from the human mind grasping towards the mystery of existence and greatly personifying it along the way. And so when people wonder which God is correct or whether or not there is a God or Gods they are taking something that points to the mystery of existence itself and questioning which personification mythology correctly describes it, or whether or not it's real. Oh it's real, the mystery underlying the existence of existence that is, but it isn't what anyone has imagined in their mind with any concept whatsoever because all concepts come from this side of the great mystery, the side of the knowable. Concepts can only orient you to the deep question at play here which is where does the life sustaining energy originate in the first place and why does it even exist in the first place for that matter? You can't conceptualize what remains infinitely out of reach - the mystery of existence itself is the great unknown. So the mythological God concepts are only guides which can take the mind down to these deeper contemplative philosophical oriented questions. And so which God is correct now when a person understands all of this? Well, all of them and none of them depending on which perspective you take. They are not addressed to any literal being at all, rather the mystery behind the conceptual categories of "being and nonbeing" (Campbell). So the myths are not correct in terms of Yahweh being real but Brahma being fake or Brahma being real but Zeus being fake. The myths are correct however in terms of the whole pantheon of a mythology operating as various aspects 'of existence' all under the supreme 'mystery of existence' itself. And with Yahweh, he started out as one deity in a pantheon of Gods called the "Elohim" (Gods) and the "Sons of El", Yahweh was but one of many others.

Later YHWH was raised to universal deity status and the other Gods were removed from the temple. At best, YHWH can be viewed as a primitive symbol which has been oriented to represent the great mystery of existence itself after having started out as a lower tribal deity of jealously, hatred, and love. These are all human traits! From the human mind trying to conceptualize the deep mystery of existence into something that resembles man, but in a superior type of way. For further reading and understanding about the mystery of existence and it's role in world mythology you may want to visit http://www.jcf.org which specializes in that very aspect of the mythos and offers books and lectures on just that.



And when you understand all of this about God and the evolution of the concept, then the MP is much more clear:

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

#1- Not every one on this site, I even dare say, most every one on this site, is NOT an atheist.

#2- There is no such thing as "proof... that there is no god". There can only be proof FOR something. Ever. Period. That's how epistemology works. There can either be evidence for X or no evidence for X, there can never be evidence for "no X". For if X does not exist, then how could it's evidence exist either? You follow?
In this reality, there is no duality when it comes to extant evidence, like with matter and anti-matter. There is no such thing as anti-evidence, to support a negative, and then evidence to support a positive.
You could only ever prove that I HAVE two arms. You could never prove that I do NOT have a third(it might be hidden inside me, it might be invisible, etc.) You simply lack the belief that I have a third arm until evidence of a third arm is presented, just as it was presented for the existence of the other two.

In spite of what characters like Shockofgod or JP Holding might like for you to believe, the burden of proof is always on the proponent of a claim, never on the skeptic of a claim. History has taught us that if we want to hold as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as we possibly can, then our safest path to that goal is to be skeptical of a claim until sufficient evidence is provided to justify belief in that claim, NOT to believe in all claims without prejudice until sufficient evidence is provided to abandon belief in a particular claim. Otherwise, we'd find ourselves believing in any irrational and dangerous bullshit that comes down the pipe.
Sorry to be cliche, but an atheist does not believe in a god for the same reason he/she does not believe in werewolves, fairies, or the flying spaghetti monster. The current amount of evidence for all of these things is insufficient to the atheist to justify him/her believing in them.
The burden of proof is not on you to prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not really exist. The burden of proof is on anyone claiming that it does, and until they provide sufficient evidence, your skepticism towards that claim is justified.

Even if a fact is actually true in reality, until sufficient evidence is provided, skepticism in that true fact is justified.
Even when everyone in the world believed that the earth was flat, if someone had come along claiming the earth was round, but had no evidence to prove that claim, then everyone would have been justified in not believing him, even though he ultimately was correct.

The ONLY thing that atheism entails is a LACK of believe in any god. It is not an organization or a dogma, it is just an adjective, and an adjective that only describes the sole attribute previously stated- lack of belief in a god.

Atheism is NOT...

...the claim that no gods exist, or could possibly exist, or ever did exist, etc...

...a belief that big bang is the origin of existence...

...the claim that there is no afterlife...

...the claim that there is nothing supernatural...

...the claim that the natural, material universe is all there is...

etc., etc., etc.

There are atheists who belief in bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, reincarnation, parallel universes, and all kinds of unconventional things.
And the burden of proof is on them to provide sufficient evidence for any of those things if they intend to convince anyone else.
For whatever reason, their personal standards of evidence have been sufficiently met for the existence of these things. Just not for a god.

I would add to these thoughtful posts that all human personalities are based on relationships with a parent / care giver. Our personal evolution is driven by a series of relationships: parents, siblings, friends, classmates, colleagues, children, etc. There is an obvious psychological compatibility with the concept of a God or gods that we are "designed" to have some relationship with.

The case could be made that atheists are simply reacting to unhelpful religions that exploit our curiosity about the "mystery of existence." Some people prefer to describe their belief as agnosticism to indicate that they haven't proved that God doesn't exist. They simply don't have enough information to know one way or the other. I don't think we necessarily need to transfer our negative feelings about a religion to any conception of God or gods.

I thought of this forum when I cam across this article of the separate spheres of science and religion.
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/the-myth-of-separate-magisteria If I wanted to study archaeology to achieve the most truthful results, then I would support any policy that limited the interference of religious views. This is because of the militancy of religious views. At the same time, I don't think science and religion can be separated completely. I think the problem is really about organizations that suppress scientific knowledge in order to advance myths that they don't really believe in.