What is your personal religious ideology

I'm not asking what denomination you are or religion I am asking what you personally believe how you personally view God.




I am a day as I believe that God exists outside of the universe and does not directly interfere in. However I also believe that every living thing every plant animal in person has a soul, a piece of God which connects everything to God.

I believe that sentience comes from a combination of a soul with a body and mind that is evolved to a certain point.

God has this ability to speak to us through our souls and to give inspiration. I believe that many of the great leaders in religion and philosophy and even government throughout the centuries have been inspired by God,. He speaks to us through our souls planting ideas in our minds and we build on those ideas.

I also believe that conscience is God speaking to us telling us right from wrong. Humans are not inherently good and so we should not have an internal monologue telling us right from wrong.

 

As someone who doesn't believe in most traditional god concepts, I think it is not my place to have a view on what God is like. If I'm discussing with someone, my primary goal is to understand God as they do. If I discuss with a trinitarian, it would be meaningless for me to view God as unitarian, and vice versa (since I believe neither).

This has some interesting consequences. If I run into sun worshippers or totem worshippers, I don't actually have a way to criticise them on the point "God exists", since the sun and their totems do actually exist. Therefore, I have to reject the concept of atheism. Of course, it is merely a semantic point, this doesn't make me believe that the sun or a totem have any supernatural powers or right to reverence, we've just shifted the discussion from "does a god exist?" to "what can a god do/be?". This makes me a theological non-cognitivist (or ignostic, but those who call themselves ignostics tend to argue that we therefore shouldn't be discussing God concepts, which I disagree with).

 

I don't accept the idea of there being a supernatural or god of any kind. There are things that aren't understood, but that will always be the case as humans are not omniscient.

I have no interest in convincing others of that, nor do I believe it is possible. I do believe various religions can have good council on morality and ethics - at least sometimes. If religion is how someone works toward improving how they view and treat others, good! Far too often religion is a source of exclusive behavior - all the way to hate and war.

Defending science is important, as it is the very best way mankind has devixed to increase our knowledge of how this universe works. With fewer people supportive of this methodology and its results, humans would be in much worse trouble than we already are.

But, I would hope that people could see science and religion as not in opposition - even as the Pope agrees with that coexistence. After all, science has nothing to say about religion.

 

You not believing in it isn't proof that one doesn't exist. This is my issue with many atheists, like Bill Maher. They mock theists for believing in a god without scientific evidence, but then turn around and go the same thing, and claim that science disproves the existence of God, which isn't true at all.

Science proves that the universe could still exist without a god, but not that one doesn't exist.

There could still very well be a god.

 

No one can know.
Religionists and atheists say they can know but that’s a lie

 

Well, that's close.

NOBODY has a religious belief that is somehow proved to be accurate. So, accusing me of not having that kind of certainty is pointless. Nobody has that. The Pope doesn't have that.

MY problem with Bill Maher is that I don't believe his comments on religion are helpful in any way and tend to work toward division.

Laughing at various religious beliefs is certainly standard comedy fare, but Maher tries to have it both ways - he bases his program on addressing serious issues as well as comedy. Surely his assaults on religion divide the population in a way that reduces the impact of everything else that he says about other issues.

I don't believe he has insights worth the division that approach causes.

Of course, there are worse offenders. Look at Rushbo, Carlson and others who have a "religion" that is mixed with real issues that makes it preposterous to accept anything they say about the real issues. At least Maher keeps the "religion" part separate from most issues. Maher doesn't base his analysis on his opposition to Christianity, for example.

Science has NOTHING to say about god, at all. Science depends on testing. Humans can't test for god. End of story.

Sciene CAN show how our natural universe works, of course. But, if someone wans to believe god is constantly dabbling in how things work, science can not address whether that is happening. For example, maybe god is moving stuff around in a way that science interprets as "gravity". Is god actually doing that? Science can't answer that question!

 

Just to be square here, let me point out that I've never claimed that I "know". Ever.

"Knowing" wasn't in the OP question.

Beyond that, I would sugest that those who use "know" in describing their belief in a god (or other belief) are actually using that word to describe the level of confidence they have in their belief. In fact, the Bible notes that Christians are saved by faith - and having faith isn't really the same as knowing.

I wouldn't suggest that statement of confidence is a lie.

 

I'm not sure that's all true. If religion makes any claim that god is affecting the physical world in any way, then that can be tested. Prayer, 'miracles', relics can all be tested to see if the claims are true. Remember statues leaking 'blood'? Proven to be fakes, like the shroud of Turin.

If religions try and influence public policy, by teaching lies in school or preventing gay people from exercising their rights, than that should be called out and stopped. Believe what you want, but don't force it on other people. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

 

I don't know what to think so I look at it like this. I am responsible for what I know and should tread lightly to reduce the amount of harm I may cause in this universe. And as far as life after life? I have no idea. Just imagination.

 

Not really Diablo. A God is an individual and does not have to respond to your "tests".

 

So, how would you test to see if god is doing gravity?

As for relics, etc., ANY test would depend on god cooperating. And, there is no way to determine whether that is happening. I agree that a lot of fakes and failures have occurred as various people try to "prove" various things about the supernatural - god, esp, etc. But, that can't be considered definitive from a science point of view, as science cant say anything about the supernatural.

I certainly agree with your last paragraph.

 

And the supernatural is all in the mind. I wonder what we may find there?

 

Exactly except that many atheists like Bill Maher State atheism as a scientifically proven fact, and consider anyone who disagrees with them to be idiots.

 

That's a universal quality.

Everyone thinks their personal views on religion are wonderful. And, large numbers also view what others think about religion is ignorant crap.

But, I do strongly doubt Maher has actually stated that atheism has been proven by science.

I'm pretty sure he knows science can't do that.

What I view as ignorant crap is what happens when religion and science get mixed. The two have very different root assumptions, have entirely different views on what is evidence, don't use the same logic, have very different objectives, view results very differently, etc. Mixing them can not POSSIBLY lead to anything but garbage..

The "religion v science" thing needs to be stopped. Even the Pope considers it to be nonsense.

 

I don't know the difference between a dream and reality. At least while I am dreaming. I don't know that there is a possibility that I could walk into a flat screen and end up in another world. I don't know anything about death but I seem to get closer every day.

 

When my daughter was 10 or so she had the most fabulous dreams I'd ever heard of.

It was stuff like being in the form of a window pane, flying around. In this form, she could fly into an open body on an operating table and fix what was wrong in a moment and fly off to other adventures. There were numerous others just as fanciful. I saw no cases where some element of the dream could have been motivated by real life experiences. She knew of nobody needing an operation, for example.

Her perfectly healthy brain concocted experiences that put the reports of near death experinces to shame!

It's impossible to guess what a brain might create as it calls out for help under oxygen deprivation and the weird inputs of failing senses. Scenes of "going toward the light"? Sure! Why not? Scenes of ones personal religion coming to life? OK! Sounds good!

 

This is where it gets complicated for me. Like the butterfly dream. Philosophy becomes entangled with reality. And reality becomes questionable.

 

You describe yourself almost as a Deist. That is one who believes there is a God/Creator, who just is to busy to care or just doesn't care to involve Himself in the affairs of mankind. Then you go on to say that God speaks to us....my own personal belief is, you are right there!
C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" seems to expound on that belief really well. We all have our views of right and wrong and it extends to all cultures. Those views are usually very close. How did they get there? But as individuals we must place judgement on different viewpoints. Some we would rate more correct than others so with that in mind, there must be a Way that is right! God speaks through what you have called a conscience. We have the ability to absorb or shut off what ever appeals to us.

I decided to follow Jesus. He speaks to me as to what I know is right. He does it through His expressed Word and by His Spirit/conscience.

 

I believe that God is first and foremost a Scientist and Inventor.... who happens to be composed of truly fundamental energy that has existed from infinite time in the past. Time was invented by God... along with space.

Our physical bodies are the energy of God that is vibrating at a very low level... but our spirits that are within us existed from billions and billions of years in the past.... (unless we are a rather new soul....and I cannot rule out God creating new souls)?!

I can see no serious errors in this thirteen chapter book on what was shown to a near death experiencer.... I also do not think that any of this contradicts the Bible.....

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

I think that the Apostle Paul probably had one of these experiences... .I assume when he was stoned and appeared dead at Lystra.... and his reaction was that he could not tell the people of his time period all that Christian Andreason felt free to explain......


https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2co/12/1/s_1090001


I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth


How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

The question was about personal belief. I believe God is a myth and therefore I would like to quote Joseph Campbell. A man who certainly wrote more about the subject of mythology than anyone else I am aware of.

God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being. Those are categories of thought. I mean it's as simple as that. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that's the ground of your own being. If it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts. Those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts. And so, they're lies. Those are the atheists

 

I don't know how the universe is created or to the deepest secrets of the universe. There is an interesting case that some kind of intelligence made life on earth or possibly the universe, but there are plenty of good counter-arguments. I can say that most of these mythologies and religions we see today and in the past are obviously false and ridiculous.

I'm a strong atheist when it comes to the Christian God. I am a weak atheist or agnostic when it comes to a generic creator God.

 

Here is the interesting thing. If you look at GREAT scientists, they predominently believe in something fitting the description, "God," even if those concepts tend to be non-traditional. For example, Einstein has said that THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or a hostile universe. While this seems to have a figurative meaning, that does not mean that it cannot also have a literal one (i.e., that this is the most important question for science to answer-- which is how I remember seeing it originally. Maybe I'm mistaken, or perhaps it's one of those quotes that comes in multiple iterations w/ slight differences in wording). But being either friendly or hostile means having a particular DISPOSITION towards us, in other words a CONSCIOUSNESS: awareness of our existence & the capacity to act on that awareness (or, in plainer talk, a will). These attributes qualify it as an entity, a being; much different from life as we're familiar w/ it, but only a complete ass would quibble that, w/o measurable respiration or some other scientific criteria, it doesn't qualify as, "living." If that argument doesn't cut it for some of you, wikipedia has a page entitled, "Religious & philosophical views of Albert Einstein," which begins by saying Einstein called himself a pantheist (meaning the belief that God is the sum of all things; that is what I call myself, as well, but the specifics in this loose classification can vary even more than between any two monotheists).

Another example is Leibniz, a contemporary of Newton's who was every bit his equal as a scientist (if not even a little bit superior). Interestingly, I remember no mention if him in grade school; I wonder if that could be due to American schools taking an Anglo slant in focusing on Newton (could German schools possibly soft-pedal Newton in favor of Leibniz?) or, more likely, simply to Leibniz's contributions requiring a more advanced learning to appreciate. At any rate, Newton was a believer in traditional Christianity & developed a code he believed could be used as a cipher to interpret the bible (cuc-koo! Sorry, I couldn't resist). Leibniz, on the other hand, believed in something he called Monadology (which differed from Monadism, a belief of the day) & which he wrote a book explaining. It seemed to bear some resemblance both to the Cabbalistic Tree of Emanations, and to some religions of Western Africa & their Carribbean transplants, at least as far as the hierarchical structure. Very basically, he believed in different energies varying in size & strength, each having jurisdiction, as it were, over a proportionally-sized locality, w/ the higher-level energies holding dominion over the lower-level fiefdoms, so to speak, and so on, & so on, up to the top Monad energy.

Then there's the ground-breaking psychological genius and mystic, Carl Gustave Jung, who also had pantheistic beliefs: that all life was the embodiment of an omnipotent, but not omniscient, God's search.

But the funny part is that the majority of scientists, at least publicly, seem to scoff at the concept of God; once again, these are largely the unimaginative, mediocre scientists who like to pretend we know so much, & not admit how much deeper than our knowledge is the chasm of our ignorance. The worst of these are those who feel they have to instruct the religious on how silly they're being, or who simply mock them, showing not only their own ignorance but arrogance, as well. As a species, we aren't capable of exploring vast regions of our OWN PLANET'S oceans; we have only limited knowledge of life in the tree canopies of our own tropical rain forests; biologists estimate that we've only identified about 10% of the species living on our planet right now; until fairly recently we believed space was mostly empty, having no idea that dark matter even existed; and yet, surely we WOULD know if God & an afterlife existed (even if IT didn't want us to, 'cause Science is just that damn good!). That type of person has clearly only replaced a spiritual deity w/ an unwarranted FAITH in, "Science," w/o even the understanding that the scientific method demands keeping an open mind to new data (we thought we fully understood physics-- until we discovered quantum physics). But NOW we know it all, BaSically, right? There couldn't possibly be any holes left in our knowledge so large that their discovery would turn our understanding on its head once again. Oh, no, we have a good idea of what things we still don't know; or at least that's how anyone who thinks he can scientifically DISprove God's existence (anymore than any religious devotee can PROVE it) is acting: like a pompous idiot.

 

Proudly agnostic.

 

I believe in God of The Bible, though I believe much of The Bible is alegorichal- an as close as possible interpretation of events that span across different realities (dimensions with different natural laws, if you will). Much of our relationship with God, our 'spirituality', is defined in 'physical' terms, or terms that most closely (but perhaps not very closely in some cases) relate to our conscious perception in this reality, but are in fact actually occurring in multiple realities (ours and God's, perhaps) simultaneously, and some of the dynamics are currently beyond our physical understanding.

I also believe its part of our destiny/purpose to attain understanding of those 'extradimensional' dynamics by advancing (be it technologically, intellectually, spiritually, or all the above) and eventually stand with God as equals in both knowledge and power. After all, what father doesn't want his children to measure up to (and surpass!) Him?

This, of course, assuming that we have all the time in the universe to do so. Of which we have the entirity of to explore and master before then. So certainly a very long term prospect. We, the human race, are still mere adolescents at best, by my reckoning.

 

Yes deism to a degree since God does not directly interfere. The universe runs itself, but God speaks to us through our souls and can give inspiration which we develop into ideas.