Do We NEED God?

DemographicsStudies on the results of people's well being are done all the time, it's kind of important to us... being people who want to be "well."
Studies on factors like religion's attachment to those results are also done all the time.Here's a basic list of countries by Quality of Life. And here's a look at how many people in each country believe in God.Taking these things together we get something like this:

Quality of Life Ranking	Country	% that Believe in God
1	Norway	< 25%
3	Netherlands	< 30%
4	USA	> 70%
10	Sweden	< 20%

So, what does this mean?
Does this mean that not believing in God increases your quality of life above the levels of the US where most people do believe in God?
Then what about Sweden... why would it be below?The obvious answer is that there's no direct correlation between quality of life and believing in God.There's also the "common sense" explanation:
Doctor's look for cures.
If a doctor finds a cure whatever it is they can help lots of people with it.
If "being with Jesus" actually worked... doctors would know about it and recommend it to everyone.
Why do you think such a cure isn't adopted universally?Is it really because people are against religion so much that they don't even want to be happy?
Or, maybe... it's because Jesus Christ doesn't actually help all people be happy.Is there a conspiracy going on holding back the power of Christ from the entire world... who already know about it anyway... it's just not working for some reason?
Or... maybe the power of Christ just doesn't work for everybody.None of this indicates that believing in Jesus Christ can't make you happy/healthy. (This is also obviously false).
What it means is that believing in Jesus Christ isn't required in order to make you happy/healthy. (You can be happy/healthy through other means).
It also means that believing in Jesus Christ won't necessarily help you to be the happiest/healthiest you can be. (It's possible, but certainly not required).Maybe you (and Mike) and any other individual is the sort of person where Jesus Christ is required for you to be happy and/or healthy. Certainly possible. This is where being honest with yourself comes in.
But to go on and say that Jesus Christ is somehow required for anyone or everyone to be happy and/or healthy is patently refuted by reality and common sense.Which is all I'm trying to say.

Thanks for the information, very interesting.I agree with the results, but I have a slightly different view on the interpretation. Quite possible.I think it's more complicated (but I'm biased, I like to think people are complicated )I think that being happy is more related to something "reducing stress" then it is to something "fitting in."
That is... some people do not want to fit in, but I will certainly admit that most do.If that can be accepted, it's easy to see how "fitting in" reduces stress for most people... if you agree with most people you encounter, your encounters will be less stressful. I don't think conformity is the greatest factor. I just think conformity is the greatest factor for most people on average.
That is, I think that doing things that align with what you actually want to do is the greatest factor.
For most people, this is conformity.
But for some, this is not conformity.Of course there will be some people (like serial killers) who will have a lot of difficulty doing what they like to do...
But, a serial killer still gets the most personal happiness from killing others.
To a degree, we all have to figure our way through that mess. Most of us have "happiness desires" that do not break the laws of our society. We should consider ourselves lucky.
Those that do have desires that break the laws of society can choose to live an unhappy existence or choose to pursue their happiness and deal with the consequences.I do basically agree with this study... that conforming brings happiness to most people.
I just don't agree with a statement that says conformity brings happiness to all people. I think that's rather obvious and easy to show as false.

A serial killer's mind is not ignorant of God. In fact almost all US serial killers are also very devout Christians...

quote:

---

Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."

---

I'm not spouting an opinion here, only relaying facts. I'm sorry if they are difficult to hear. I hope it works out for you, it is definitely the best path for some. Actually, it's called "evil." I certainly know that it's evil. Why would you get the impression otherwise?
This doesn't change the fact that serial killers get pleasure from killing people. Are you trying to say this is incorrect? I don't understand your indignation.Nobody said that we should let serial killers kill people just because it makes them happy. It's... interesting... that you seem to have come to that conclusion. I'm not conflating a serial killer's pleasure-seeking desire to kill people with evil. I'm saying that it is evil.
You seem to be saying that because it's natural then it's not a sin? That seems very incorrect.Being natural or not does not make something evil.
Something is evil if it hurts other people. Period. End of thought. No additional details necessary. Yes, this is true.
Again. Serial killers get pleasure from killing people. This is a fact. Do you deny it?
Serial killers have a desire to kill people... because they get pleasure from it. Again, a simple fact, you are denying this?Therefore, serial killers (vile people) are victims of their own desire to want to kill people where most people do not want to die.This is kind of basic, I don't really see anything to disagree with. What, specifically, do you think is not valid, here?This does not insinuate that we should give them special privilege, or not put them in jail or not stop them or not call it "evil."
But it's still all true... Don't worry about me, mike, I am lucky enough to not have these uncommon and unfortunate natural urges. But your implication that I might is rather funny Jesus Christ is the way out for some. But He doesn't work for all people.
Another way out is simply to understand the consequences that will befall you and therefore restrain yourself and learn another avenue for your desires.
Sometimes there is no way out (as far as we have uncovered, yet, anyway).
Sometimes it is (currently) impossible to retrain someone's desires from wanting to kill people towards other less-dangerous activities. No, it's most certainly not universal.
If it was universal, there would be no such thing as a "deconversion" or an atheist or "any religion other than Christianity."Obviously, since those other things trivially exist, Jesus Christ is certainly not "universal" and doesn't "always work" for everyone. It's another plain and simple fact. Also patently not true.
I myself live in a world devoid of Jesus Christ.
It's not terrible. It's full of Love. That would be fantastic.
This choice can be made with or without Jesus Christ, of course. Nightmares beyond imagination. I don't consider any of that to be happiness or valid. What would give you that idea?
I do, however, accept that Ted Bundy found happiness/pleasure in doing such things. Do you really think otherwise? It's another fact of life you seem to be denying just because it upsets you. It upsets me, too. But me being upset doesn't change the reality of Ted Bundy's actions. Now that's sad.
If this is what you see around you, I pity you.I certainly agree that Ted Bundy is a terrible, terrible source of evil. But Ted Bundy is hardly "the world." I agree that it's very evil, indeed. Nothing I have said implies any catering for evil. You made that up all by yourself. No, this is not what I said.I said a person should "do what works for them" in order to be happy. Really, it's the only way.
I never said a person should "do what works for them" in order to function in society and live out a normal life.One is selfish, the other is finding a way to co-exist with others.Lucky people (like myself) get to have the two align so it doesn't matter. I get to be selfish while co-existing with others.
Unlucky people (like Ted Bundy) have a mess to deal with. Bundy made poor choices to deal with his mess.The way to get through difficult messes is to have the information you require to make better choices.
Just hand-waving it away and saying "let the Holy Spirit into your heart!" doesn't do anything. And it doesn't work to help the unlucky people make better choices. It's useless preaching such as this that prods people like Bundy ever-closer to making more and more poor choices towards the catastrophic end-game of their desires. If you don't want to understand me or listen to what I say, that's fine.
I would appreciate it, though, if you wouldn't be so mean about misconstruing what it is you think I'm talking about.
It's bad form. Don't worry about it, mike. It's obvious to anyone who reads this conversation which of us is ignorant of the other's viewpoint.
Take care, and I hope everything works out for you.

Yes, this is something that happens to pretty much everybody, no matter what path they choose. Only if they are never mistaken.
If you can be mistaken, how can you know it's true if you can't prove it?I agree that you can act on the idea that it's true... but you can't know it's true unless you can show it or prove it in someway. That's what the word "know" means.Now, you do have a point that it's quite possible for something to actually be true where we cannot prove it, or know it.
That is a valid statement.
But it's trivially invalid to say that you can "know" something is true, but be unable to show that it actually is. Oh, I'm certainly ignorant of a great many things.
Anything specific you have in mind? I do agree. It is quite possible to believe you are correct regardless of any evidence or proof or even contrary facts.
It is quite possible to even be correct without evidence or proof.And this certainty works extremely well for certain people. Perhaps you are one of these people where this works well for you.
For me, though... I'm just not built this way.
I am unable to remove all my doubts simply because I believe something is true. That is all I am saying.
Based on the information (evidence/proof/whatever) we are able to collect and verify... it all seems to point towards God not existing.Each of us then has to decide if we want to base our conclusion on the information we're able to collect and verify... or on our personal, unverifiable beliefs.There's nothing wrong with either choice.
And, if you're honest with yourself, there might be one you will lean towards.
If you choose to go with the one you lean towards... things will make more sense.
If you choose to go against the one you lean towards... things will always have a nagging sense of dis-satisfaction. No, that wouldn't prove anything.And I agree, you certainly can have "genuine knowledge that something is true without being able to prove it objectively" in the sense that it's quite possible to be correct about something without being able to prove that you are.You can't, however, "know that you are correct about something" without being able to show that you are correct about something.
You can feel like you know you are correct.
But... everyone feels like they know they are correct about everything they claim to know.Haven't you ever been wrong?
Have you never thought you put the milk in the fridge but accidentally left it on the counter? Or maybe put it in the pantry?
We all think we're correct until we find out we made a mistake.This doesn't mean everything in our minds is useless.
It means that some thoughts will be right and others will be wrong.If you've never been wrong... then I stand corrected.
But, if it's possible for you to make a mistake... then my point stands.If you can make a mistake, you cannot know that the idea in your head is correct unless you can show it to be correct.
It may actually be correct still... but you just don't "know" that.Removing knowledge from a criminal's brain would only show you what the criminal feels he knows. Very true.
Also true: There are many people that have been executed, that stated they were innocent, and were actually guilty. This is simply impossible unless you have never made a mistake or you can show the results to other people. This is exactly the reason why personal witnesses are extremely unreliable in any and all court proceedings. Actually, I am not spiritually ignorant. I am very spiritual, perhaps even more so than yourself... but I don't know (and don't really care, either).You are correct in your idea, though... I certainly am ignorant of God.Maybe I'm ignorant of God because He hasn't revealed Himself to me for whatever reason (perhaps my fault... perhaps his choice...).
Maybe I'm ignorant of God because He simply doesn't exist.You say it's the former.
All evidence that humans have ever gathered in the history of mankind favours the latter.I tentatively go with the latter.
But I'm open to be shown otherwise, if you have anything you can offer.

Exactly Really, we don't have any proof either way.
So, I say it's best to let people figure out their own way.You want to believe in God?
Great, go ahead and do that... hope it helps you.Others can't get help that way and find another path?
Great, do some self-reflection and be honest about what works and doesn't work for you.Any God worth some salt isn't going to begrudge any human for being honest and doing their best. Even if that means denying His existence or defiling His name or anything else.I mean, really, do you actually think an all-powerful God would get upset over something human children deal with by singing a simple rhyme?
"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me."...Unless you're an all-powerful God, then names sting like a bitch?

I was basically telling Mike that there's always "a glimmer of a chance we could be wrong" about anything. Simply because we don't know everything.Such a basic piece of information, yes, would indicate an agnostic position.However, we do have more information available to us about God that can indicate things to us more.
To me, the most convincing piece of information is that if I were to imagine a universe without God... it would look exactly like the one we're currently living in. As well, if I were to imagine a universe with a benevolent, loving, powerful God.. it would be extremely different from the one we're currently living in. That leads me towards an understanding that God does not exist.But hey, I could be wrong Probability always enters the picture with us humans. We don't get to know anything for certain simply because we don't know everything.
Therefore, everything we know is based on probabilities of likelihood, regardless of whether we acknowledge that or not.If anyone tells you they know "for absolutely certain" that anything is true... simply ask them if they've ever been wrong before.
If they've never been wrong, then I will begin to be impressed. Of course, being human, I would highly doubt they have never been wrong about anything before. Therefore, it's quite possible they're wrong about whatever they say is "absolutely certain.""No hard evidence" isn't an indication that we should remain on-the-fence about a subject.
"No hard evidence" for an idea is an indication that we should lean away from such an idea being true.
Especially if mankind has been actively looking for hard evidence for thousands of years and still has yet to find any... Such information should give us great pause in considering the idea to still, somehow, be valid.You can learn from the efforts of others, or do the work again yourself.
It's up to you to decide if the idea is worth the time you need to put in. Our time is limited, but you are the only one who can identify how valuable it is to yourself.

Thanks.
I try to stay away from those labels for the most part. They make me uncomfortable as so many different people have so many different ideas that have been stuck onto all such religiously-connected labels.I'd much rather just talk about whatever I actually mean, and have anyone else label it whatever they'd like."A rose is still a rose..." and all that

Heh... I actually re-worded that part many times before submitting my post.
I didn't mean something like "information about the real, true God."
I meant more like "information about the ideas and experiences everyone claims to be about God."I have a tendency to babble on and over-explain things. Such a tendency makes my posts long to read, so I try to avoid it.
I was hoping that "about God" would get my point across without having to get into the details. Whoops Yes, that's true. That's why I never said such a thing.
What I said was that if I were to imagine a universe with a benevolent, loving, powerful God... it would be extremely different from the one we're currently living in....which I can say, and I'll say it again and again.
You are right, though, a real benevolent, loving and powerful God may not be able to keep up with my imagination, poor thing (and poor us!) The definition of "hard evidence" is something that is objective and can be shared with others.
Your sentence seems to be using a very strange definition of "hard evidence."I certainly believe that you are personally convinced.
However, the list of people who are personally convinced of things... and turn out to be wrong about them... is very, very long.
This does not indicate that you, on this subject, are wrong. But it does give me pause, and... why shouldn't it?I find I am more comfortable around people who acknowledge that we (as humans) can make mistakes, and continually look for ways to improve their stance.Improving your stance still means "you were wrong" initially.
Therefore "being wrong" isn't necessarily a bad thing, and has a long history of being extremely beneficial.To me, being personally convinced is a dead-end. Stagnant.
In my college years, I discovered that the secret to life (for me) is to "get better." Be that improving my educational awareness, or possibly just finding a new favourite shirt. Change, for me, is a requirement for "getting better." Being personally convinced of something is inherently against change... it is inherently against "getting better." It is inherently against what I personally need to do in order to live a happy life.I don't mean that as a slight, simply a description of my point of view. I do firmly believe this.
And, there are benefits to being personally convinced that I cannot have (they just don't work for me).
Benefits like having a firm resolve when one is surrounded by doubt.
If you know you're right, that comes with a certain level of confidence and motivation to continue in such a direction. If the direction turns out to be a good one, then such unassailable resolve was undeniably the best course of action.I, however, am unable to balance the "if the direction is a good one..." part with the "unassailable resolve" part as long as I am unable to read the future. The possibility of absolutely striving forwards in a possibly-wrong direction is just too much for me to take to heart. I would be racked with worry, guilt and indecision if I were expected to undergo such a route. Even if it eventually turned out that the destination was the correct one... The fact that I didn't know that is enough to make me... unhappy (to say the least).I have found other ways to deal with situations where I'm surrounded by doubt. And many of those methods are adequate, and sometimes better (when the "personally convinced" direction turns out to be wrong). But the fact remains... if you have a personal conviction and move in a certain direction... and that direction turns out to be the correct one... then you were on the fastest, most efficient path to that goal. Such a fact is undeniable. And I have forever closed myself off to that possibility. Of course, to me, this is the same as a decision to not play the lottery as "forever closing myself off the possibility of instantly becoming rich." But I'm a little biased, it should be of little surprise that I'm a bit fond of the way I choose to do things I would agree with this statement, I just wouldn't call it "hard evidence" because, well, that's not the definition of the term "hard evidence."

I don't know.What it means to me is that I expect a benevolent, loving, powerful God to be benevolent, loving and powerful.
With the way certain things are in this world, I cannot see how certain evils exist alongside a benevolent, loving and powerful God.Maybe God isn't as benevolent towards other humans as I am.
Maybe God isn't as loving towards other humans as I am.
Maybe God isn't as powerful as I want Him to be.
Maybe some combination of those 3 things.Or, maybe God doesn't exist.I think it's the latter.Think of a little girl getting raped.
In this world, little girls sometimes get raped.
If I had the power to stop such things, I would.
Why doesn't God?Is God not benevolent enough towards little girls?
Is God not loving enough towards little girls?
Is God not powerful enough to stop rapists?
Some combination?Or maybe God doesn't exist.Some people may say that God doesn't want to interfere with the Free Will of the rapist.
To those people, I ask if they care about the Free Will of the little girl.Both individuals have Free Will.
The rapist wants to rape the little girl.
The little girl does not want to be raped.If the rape happens - the rapist gets his way, and the little girl loses her free will.
If the rape doesn't happen - the little girl gets her way, and the rapist loses his free will.
It is impossible for the little girl to be raped and not-raped at the same time. There is no "both win" scenario. It's either one or the other.I side with the little girl.If anyone wants to try and twist themselves into thinking that a "benevolent, loving and powerful" God would side with the rapist instead of with the little girl... then I would then ask them to define the words "benevolent" and "loving" while backing away very slowly. It's not healthy to startle psychopaths...

My responsibility? Nothing.
But if I was a superhero I would still stop the raping of little girls.
Not because it was my responsibility, but because I'm benevolent, loving and powerful enough to do so. I don't think society could force me to be responsible for anything. Especially if I was a superhero. What power does society have over a superhero? I don't think I understand what you're trying to talk about. Reduced? I thought I was becoming a superhero in some sort of analogy towards God? A superhero is not "just another individual" or "reduced" in some way.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.I'm not directing God to say that He has to save little girls from getting raped.I'm just saying that if God is powerful enough to stop such things, and He doesn't... then God is not benevolent or loving (at least, not towards that little girl).It's a fairly simple concept.There are many possible reasons why God doesn't stop such atrocities:God is not powerful enough.
God is not benevolent enough.
God is not loving enough.
Or some combination.
There can be some extremely good reasons in there. The reason why I don't stop such things are in those 3. (Mine's because I'm not powerful enough).Or maybe, God doesn't exist... but this kinda falls under "not powerful enough," too.

Little girls would no longer get raped?
What's bad about this?What's so bad about a world exactly like this one, but little girls no longer get raped?I'm not talking about removing everything anyone calls "hurting someone."
I brought up a very extreme example for a reason... it's obvious and persistent. Anyone who disagrees with stopping such atrocities is obviously a psychopath.But they aren't all stopped.How can this be possible with a God who is aware enough, benevolent enough, loving enough and powerful enough?
It simply isn't possible.Therefore, God is not aware enough, benenvolent enough, loving enough or powerful enough.It's not a difficult idea. It's just an uncomfortable one.

All of them that I could. Which would depend on the extent of my powers as a "superhero" which do not seem to be defined here.Again, it depends on 2 basic things: Am I powerful enough to stop it?
-am I aware of it?
-can I prevent it?
-are some "events" too far apart/at the same time and I can't do both? Do I care enough to stop it?
-do I want to help the victim?
-if I help the victim, am I disregarding some other aspect of my life (caring for and supporting my own family, say)? Is that aspect more important at some level?These are all questions that become moot when discussing the abilities of an "all powerful" God who "always loves" everyone, all the time.
I'm not sure where my suggested superhero abilities would begin or end. But the idea as suggested (I thought, anyway) was an analogy for me to 'become God' and see what it was like. If I really was "all powerful," I don't see how any of my thoughts above would prevent me from stopping any rape. Again, this depends on the levels of my powers.
If my powers are large enough, if I am "all powerful"... is there a need for any priority? Why not do both?If I had to choose... well, I would assume it would be extremely situational.
That is, I might focus on the larger task (peace in the Middle East) yet stop any rapes I become aware of while there... or something like that. Maybe 'peace in the Middle East' is too much for my superpowers, even? Who knows?My point is that such questions become moot if someone ("God") really is "all powerful." Why have any priorities at that point? Why not prevent all horrendous acts of abuse against innocents?I can't seem to find the quote I'm thinking of, but this is close enough:

quote:

---

Problem of Evil

​

If God is omniscient, he is aware of the existence of evil; if he is omnipotent, he is able to stop it; if he is omnibenevolent, he wants to stop it. As the philospher Epicurus asked over 2,000 years ago, if this is the case, whence evil?

---

It's a simple case of people running away with the "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" idea of children.
My God is stronger than your God.
My God is more caring than your God.
My God is Omnipotent!
My God is Omni-benevolent!...people got into grabbing onto these labels without really thinking through how the reality we live in can exist the way it is if such an all-powerful God really existed.To me, it's an obvious point showing us that the idea of an "all powerful, all-loving" God really is just made up by people.Of course, God may still exist. He just can't be omnipotent and all-caring/loving at the same time while such evil things happen.There are many things I would call "God" if they are powerful enough and caring enough... even if they are not omnipotent.

But I'm not expecting this.This would be difficult at some level to define "hurt."
Which, again, is why I picked the extremely obvious example of "raping little girls."To me, this seems like an irrefutable place to start. If necessary, we can move onto the 'next evil' once all the rapes are taken care of. I don't think anything would be an issue for an "omnipotent" God? I know exactly what the power of stopping rapes of little girls means and what it would change about our lives as a species.
The little girl would not be raped, and retain the free will of her life.
The rapist would not get-to-rape, and lose the free will of a few hours or so.Again, this example is chosen because it is extremely easy to see the issues, understand the consequences and know what has to be done.If it's easy for us, why is it so hard for God? If you'd like, I can explain to God why preventing the rape of little girls is a good thing.
I'm extremely confident in my fallible, human ability to conclude such an endeavor.
I don't understand why you seem to be having difficulty with it. Mine seems to compute such things just fine.
Are you really having such confusion over whether or not little girls should be allowed to get raped? A great suggestion.

I have no issues with such an idea on it's own.My issue only begins if someone then claims that God is also omnipotent and omni-benevolent.There is no "plan" that includes the atrocities that exist in this world that can be described as "omni-benevolent" to those so negatively affected.Which means either:1. God doesn't care enough to prevent the atrocities, He cares more about getting His "plan" pushed through (not omni-benevolent).
2. Or God isn't powerful enough to carry through with His "plan" while also preventing such atrocities (not omnipotent).In the words of the great Archer: "There's a nice way to do that!"

These 2 statements mean exactly the same thing to me And this is very interesting: When I read this, this is my understanding of your position:As long as everything is fairly okay, you have no issues with other people having different beliefs.
However, if a difficult situation comes along... one that would have almost everyone relying on their own beliefs to get them through the situation... in this sort of turmoil, you would want to force everyone to use YOUR beliefs instead of the ones that might actually help them get through the problem? I know you feel incredibly solid that God is required to help get through tough times.
Can you imagine someone else feeling the same level of adherence to their own belief that they might require to help get through tough times?If so... why take such a thing away from them? Would you want such a thing taken away from you?
If not... how can you be so arrogant?This idea that you hold something so dear... that no one else can possibly hold a different idea equally as dearly... is exactly why people fight and argue all the time.Again, I'm sure you have no problems with your favourite colour and someone else having a different favourite colour.
What about one child needing a blanket when they're scared vs. another child needing a calming bath?Why is it when things are "not a big deal" you have no issue allowing others to make their own choices, but as soon as something is "very important" other people are no longer allowed to think for themselves? They must, then, take Phat at his word and accept his way of doing things?I would suggest that if your opinion is so much greater... then you should be able to convince others of it's obvious beneficial qualities during times of calmness and peace rather than relying on a wide-spread disaster in order to spring your personal beliefs on others If you are unable to do so when things are normal, perhaps there is a reason why you should not do such things when panic and fear are ruling the day?When people are scared and troubled, it is best to calm them down their way to get them to a reasonable position again... then you can move on to convincing others of your "great ideas" when time permits. I would, however, agree that "common unity" would be a much needed goal during such a time.What makes you think that forcing everyone to do things Phat's way, when we know there is a majority that do not agree, would be a good way to achieve "common unity" instead of finding "common unity" in people's desire for peace and calmness itself (no matter the pathway to that peace and calmness, given it's not hurting other people)?