QUOTE (theresa113 @ Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 7:23 PM) 
I am reluctant to post this but what the hey… I’ve been in a very strange mood the past few days.
Did it ever occur to you all that you all could be wrong or that you all could be right? What I mean is that both sides of this argument of Yes there is a God and No there is not a God has validity.
For those of you who are in the No God camp… every culture in recorded history has had some belief in some sort of higher power or force. From a cultural standpoint, there is this human nature to believe in something outside or beyond ourselves. I know you can argue that each culture believed in other things that turned out not to be true but it is pretty amazing that throughout recorded history, every culture has had some sort of spiritual beliefs.
For those of you in the Yes God camp… don’t you find it contradictory that every culture has a different story in regards to this higher power? Cultures have believed in multiple gods, single God, different prophets, different after-life’s, etc. If every culture developed their own spiritual stories, then how can you ascertain that your story is 100% correct? How can you be so convinced that your story is a true story and that all of the other current and past cultures have it incorrect?
Anyway, I would like to propose a third perspective. That perspective is that there is something beyond the physical. As of yet, no one has been able to scientifically determine exactly what that is, maybe it lies in quantum physics or some other intelligence that could be either external or internal (or both) but that there is something. I would also like to propose that this something is way beyond comprehension and that it is human nature to try to define things that we intuitively know has presence; hence culturally we have created stories of this indefinable, intangible something. And maybe, just maybe each one of these stories is true because it has personal resonance, creates a sense of purpose and well being, gives ease to that uncertainty, thus it is valid not in the actual facts but because the belief serves a purposes to keep us civilized, moral, just and sane. At the same time, those who dismiss this uncertainty as nonsense is also equally valid because the dismissal creates the same calm, giving that person the confidence that they are not dictated by uncertainty and having the same faith in the physical world and what can be proven through scientific method. This calmness gives a sense of self which then dictates someone to be civilized, moral, just and sane.
OK… I know this all sounds like nonsense but what I am trying to say is that couldn’t the Yes God and the No God people be both right and wrong at the same time? Either side of the argument could be that one person’s perception that creates a balance within society as well as our own internal mental balance.
Thoughts? (And yes, I am cool with all of you calling me a nut case.
)
Did it ever occur to you all that you all could be wrong or that you all could be right? What I mean is that both sides of this argument of Yes there is a God and No there is not a God has validity.
For those of you who are in the No God camp… every culture in recorded history has had some belief in some sort of higher power or force. From a cultural standpoint, there is this human nature to believe in something outside or beyond ourselves. I know you can argue that each culture believed in other things that turned out not to be true but it is pretty amazing that throughout recorded history, every culture has had some sort of spiritual beliefs.
For those of you in the Yes God camp… don’t you find it contradictory that every culture has a different story in regards to this higher power? Cultures have believed in multiple gods, single God, different prophets, different after-life’s, etc. If every culture developed their own spiritual stories, then how can you ascertain that your story is 100% correct? How can you be so convinced that your story is a true story and that all of the other current and past cultures have it incorrect?
Anyway, I would like to propose a third perspective. That perspective is that there is something beyond the physical. As of yet, no one has been able to scientifically determine exactly what that is, maybe it lies in quantum physics or some other intelligence that could be either external or internal (or both) but that there is something. I would also like to propose that this something is way beyond comprehension and that it is human nature to try to define things that we intuitively know has presence; hence culturally we have created stories of this indefinable, intangible something. And maybe, just maybe each one of these stories is true because it has personal resonance, creates a sense of purpose and well being, gives ease to that uncertainty, thus it is valid not in the actual facts but because the belief serves a purposes to keep us civilized, moral, just and sane. At the same time, those who dismiss this uncertainty as nonsense is also equally valid because the dismissal creates the same calm, giving that person the confidence that they are not dictated by uncertainty and having the same faith in the physical world and what can be proven through scientific method. This calmness gives a sense of self which then dictates someone to be civilized, moral, just and sane.
OK… I know this all sounds like nonsense but what I am trying to say is that couldn’t the Yes God and the No God people be both right and wrong at the same time? Either side of the argument could be that one person’s perception that creates a balance within society as well as our own internal mental balance.
Thoughts? (And yes, I am cool with all of you calling me a nut case.
)There are a number of people who consider themselves Buddhists, that are also atheists. You can believe in a spiritual connection (in buddhism, the fact that everything and everyone is really the same thing: one), but don't need to believe in a personal god that is conscious. Very common belief system
