Do you believe in god?

[dippididodaday]

Matthew 10:34-35
 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"

Jeez, I thought to myself wait, let me go check out this particular piece of writing and try to see if I can fathom a little bit the broader context of this particular cast so I went ahead and read the whole of chapter 10 and boy, is it ever confusing. I have to over and over again ask myself good f*ck I can't believe I once, long ago, read this same piece and it never occurred to me the incongruence generated by these writings of a culture that is so far removed from my Western experience, that I have to laugh to think that millions of Westerners actually follow so very blindly the cultural heritage of these writings and never realize the degree of separation between what these writings mean and their particular way of life which is completely removed from the intention of said writings.

It is so absurd in fact that I can't help and laugh about it. At least something positive for me in all of this.

[1714997393]

1714997393

[1714997393]

1714997393

[1714997393]

1714997393

[1714997393]

1714997393

[1714997393]

1714997393

[BADecker]

Matthew 10:34-35
 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"

Jeez, I thought to myself wait, let me go check out this particular piece of writing and try to see if I can fathom a little bit the broader context of this particular cast so I went ahead and read the whole of chapter 10 and boy, is it ever confusing. I have to over and over again ask myself good f*ck I can't believe I once, long ago, read this same piece and it never occurred to me the incongruence generated by these writings of a culture that is so far removed from my Western experience, that I have to laugh to think that millions of Westerners actually follow so very blindly the cultural heritage of these writings and never realize the degree of separation between what these writings mean and their particular way of life which is completely removed from the intention of said writings.

It is so absurd in fact that I can't help and laugh about it. At least something positive for me in all of this.

I guess the passage quoted above isn't going far enough. No peace even in yourself, all because of Jesus.

[dippididodaday]

Matthew 10:34-35
 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"

Jeez, I thought to myself wait, let me go check out this particular piece of writing and try to see if I can fathom a little bit the broader context of this particular cast so I went ahead and read the whole of chapter 10 and boy, is it ever confusing. I have to over and over again ask myself good f*ck I can't believe I once, long ago, read this same piece and it never occurred to me the incongruence generated by these writings of a culture that is so far removed from my Western experience, that I have to laugh to think that millions of Westerners actually follow so very blindly the cultural heritage of these writings and never realize the degree of separation between what these writings mean and their particular way of life which is completely removed from the intention of said writings.

It is so absurd in fact that I can't help and laugh about it. At least something positive for me in all of this.

I guess the passage quoted above isn't going far enough. No peace even in yourself, all because of Jesus.

BADecker, .... you are a true friend to me. Thanks man! I appreciate your comments immensely. Promise you'll stick around, will you please - pretty please?   

[criptix]

#1
The correlation is lower IQ equals to less thinking equals to more superstition and religiosity which I think is very logical.

#2
...
More religiosity means less avg. Iq of the population equals to less economic wealth.

#3
...
So as long as we hold on to capitalism the end of religion is designed  to happen.

The wealthiest societies today were until recently very religions or colonies of said societies. It was not imperial China that kicked off the industrial revolution but the very christian and quite religious Great Britain. A more likely interpretation of the data is that increasing wealth leads to decadence and undermines religiosity. High IQ is associated with success and wealth. Low IQ countries stayed poor and religious.

Your example  is wrong. Industrial revolution in the UK was based of several things like history,  geography,  politics etc. It has nothing to do with religion - religion was in fact an enemy of industrial revolution.
Which rich and religious colonies are you talking about? Most colonies in Africa and Asia are doing pretty bad - except some city states (which incorporated western non religious standards like secularism) or communist nations like China (biggest economy in the world).
Your interpretation is wrong. Sustained wealth is based on good economics and education which leads to new scientific achievements - a positive feedback.

Imperial China had the means for the industrial revolution 2000 years ago but they didn't succeed for various reasons but nevertheless I was talking about communist China.

Superstition and religiosity are distinctly separate entities. While it is true that both are currently correlated with low IQ I have argued that only the former will be associated with low IQ over the long term and provided reasons why this may be the case. I also highlighted religious groups that defy this correlation.  

Please link, because I'm very doubtful about your Mormon studies.

What makes you think we will hold onto capitalism? We lost capitalism some time ago. Freedom requires a solid moral foundation to be maintained. Lose your moral foundation and the rest slowly collapses.

Uh what? When did we stop with capitalism? I think I didn't got the memo
 

[CoinCube]

Please link, because I'm very doubtful about your Mormon studies.

Sure here is one I came across when I was writing the Health and Religion thread. I have seen others as well.
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/latter-day-saint-social-life-social-research-lds-church-and-its-members/9-secularization

Its a long read so for those who do not want to go through it here is the summary

For our Mormon sample, then, we find virtually no evidence to support the hypothesis that education has a secularizing influence. For Mormon men, the higher the level of education, the higher one’s level of religious observance. A critical point in our findings is that this holds for several measures of religiosity

I have also seen studies that show that American Orthodox Jews (often considered most religious of the Jews) also have higher levels of education and income than their peers which leads me to believe the they are similar to Mormons in this regard.
 

Your interpretation is wrong. Sustained wealth is based on good economics and education which leads to new scientific achievements - a positive feedback.

...
When did we stop with capitalism? I think I didn't got the memo

Yep sorry you missed the memo. In Europe Government spending now accounts for over 50% of GDP in many countries. The USA is not far behind. Socialism and government cronyism now dominate our economies. The remnants of capitalism which still exist are shrinking and in decline. The two links below will get you up to speed.

Understand Everything Fundamentally
The Rise of Knowledge

Sustained wealth does require good economics and education but these in turn must be built atop a solid moral foundation or they will not last. A prior and far wiser generation understood this.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” - George Washington

[dippididodaday]

Sustained wealth does required good economics and education but these in turn must be built atop a solid moral foundation or they will not be sustained. A prior and far wiser generation understood this.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” - George Washington

I am asking myself the question how does this thing of sustained wealth permeates to more rather than less human beings if The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest. It is indeed a pressing question for I do observe the tremendous sustainability of wealth of these persons and I cannot equate this to virtuousness or freedom or indispensable morality or any such wondrous balancing equilibrium as such that I observe in nature. Maybe humans are not as natural as we might like to think?

[CoinCube]

I am asking myself the question how does this thing of sustained wealth permeates to more rather than less human beings if The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest...

The natural conclusion is that such inequity is not sustainable and that it will correct itself to the degree that it is not justified by true productivity differences. Most of these extraordinary gains are facilitated by modern finance which itself is unsustainable. Exactly how it will correct itself and how quickly is up for debate. Anonymint in his essay titled Demise of Finance, Rise of Knowledge (linked above) provided one mechanism of correction. I agree with his analysis.

[BADecker]

I am asking myself the question how does this thing of sustained wealth permeates to more rather than less human beings if The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest...

The natural conclusion is that such inequity is not sustainable and that it will correct itself to the degree that it is not justified by true productivity differences. Most of these extraordinary gains are facilitated by modern finance which itself is unsustainable. Exactly how it will correct itself and how quickly is up for debate. Anonymint in his essay titled Demise of Finance, Rise of Knowledge (linked above) provided one mechanism of correction. I agree with his analysis.

The two major reason why the U.S. military created ISIS are these:
1. To make some enemy in the eyes of the American people to justify the existence of the military and the government, for monetary purposes;
2. The whole operation of creating ISIS and then fighting ISIS creates more Ponzi money by borrowing from the banking system to keep the worldwide money system going.

Google "military created ISIS."

[Watson5842]

I don't believe in God. The idea of there being someone who knows everything about me, who decides what is right and what is wrong and makes the decision when to take lives scares me. I hate it when people die and others say "God took their lives". No! That people did not die because God wanted it. They died because they died.
God is not more than an idea, somebody else's tale. There is no real evidence to believe in God. All that we see in nature was there and will be there.
God is an imaginary figure, which helps the society to bind together to do good to each other. But real good has to happen as a result of your love and wish.

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't believe in God. The idea of there being someone who knows everything about me, who decides what is right and what is wrong and makes the decision when to take lives scares me. I hate it when people die and others say "God took their lives". No! That people did not die because God wanted it. They died because they died.
God is not more than an idea, somebody else's tale. There is no real evidence to believe in God. All that we see in nature was there and will be there.
God is an imaginary figure, which helps the society to bind together to do good to each other. But real good has to happen as a result of your love and wish.

All true. The only thing I would add is if I were going to believe in god it wouldn't be one of the vengeful, hateful, cruel, murdering monsters that exist in religious texts today. My God wouldn't turn anyone into a pillar of salt. She wouldn't cause a flood to genocide every man, woman, child and baby on the earth. She wouldn't reign supreme on a platform of fearmongering and hatred for her subjects and she wouldn't be a sexist patriarch of a polluted group of misfits that she herself despises.

My god would be a kind and gentile caretaker for her people instead of a lunatic hell-bent on the destruction of the earth. When they drift astray from her teachings she would caress them and help them back toward the path of enlightenment. She wouldn't allow bad things to happen to her people. She would end suffering, deformity, hunger, strife and misery for her people. She would be a caretaker god that refuses to throw her people to the wolves only to tell them they are at fault for being inferior and bragging constantly in all of her teachings about how superior she is over her creations. In other words, my god would be a god of love. I'll have to create that one myself because she doesn't exist in any of the religions of the world today.

[CoinCube]

My god would be a kind and gentile caretaker for her people instead of a lunatic hell-bent on the destruction of the earth. When they drift astray from her teachings she would caress them and help them back toward the path of enlightenment. She wouldn't allow bad things to happen to her people. She would end suffering, deformity, hunger, strife and misery for her people. She would be a caretaker god that refuses to throw her people to the wolves only to tell them they are at fault for being inferior and bragging constantly in all of her teachings about how superior she is over her creations. In other words, my god would be a god of love. I'll have to create that one myself because she doesn't exist in any of the religions of the world today.

QuestionAuthority it is clear from your signature that you care deeply about your fellow man and wish to help them. This is one of the most admirable character traits. Your questions are the same as those that caused me to turn away from religion in my younger years. That process was accelerated by the great uneducated masses cryptix mentions eager to tell me everything about their faith but responding like a deer in the headlights when challenged with difficult questions. Your queries are challenging ones. How can God an infinite being the ultimate giver allow horrible things to happen to people? How can a loving god permit suffering, deformity, hunger, strife and misery?

These are questions that have answers and these answers do not rely on blind faith but are instead logical and rational going far beyond the trite response of "God works in mysterious ways". The challenge, however, is that these answers require one to delve deep into the rich intellectual tradition of ethical monotheism which at first glance looks like a shallow pool but on deeper reflection is more of a vast ocean. Your God of love does exist and logic and reason can show you this.

Given the challenging nature of your questions, however, I will freely admit that I am not qualified to answer them. The best I can offer is to direct you to a source that I believe may answer them in a way you find satisfactory.

I would recommend to you to the book The Way of God: Derech Hashem by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. Which answers these questions logically and systematically in a very organized fashion.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/087306769X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/159-3751462-6767111?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=NM9R7T16A9G2147WGMJX&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687722&pf_rd_i=1598264672

There is a free class in Seattle that is currently going through this book chapter by chapter taught by Rabbi Mark Spiro. To start I would recommend just listening to the first class so you begin to understand how your questions can be answered see if you are interested at all in going further. The audio links can be found here:

http://www.livingjudaism.com/the-way-of-god.html

This class is obviously taught from the the perspective of the Jewish tradition but most of it is applicable to all variations of monotheism. I have found it to be interesting with vast philosophical depth and I am not Jewish.

[dippididodaday]

I don't believe in God. The idea of there being someone who knows everything about me, who decides what is right and what is wrong and makes the decision when to take lives scares me. I hate it when people die and others say "God took their lives". No! That people did not die because God wanted it. They died because they died.
God is not more than an idea, somebody else's tale. There is no real evidence to believe in God. All that we see in nature was there and will be there.
God is an imaginary figure, which helps the society to bind together to do good to each other. But real good has to happen as a result of your love and wish.

All true. The only thing I would add is if I were going to believe in god it wouldn't be one of the vengeful, hateful, cruel, murdering monsters that exist in religious texts today. My God wouldn't turn anyone into a pillar of salt. She wouldn't cause a flood to genocide every man, woman, child and baby on the earth. She wouldn't reign supreme on a platform of fearmongering and hatred for her subjects and she wouldn't be a sexist patriarch of a polluted group of misfits that she herself despises.

My god would be a kind and gentile caretaker for her people instead of a lunatic hell-bent on the destruction of the earth. When they drift astray from her teachings she would caress them and help them back toward the path of enlightenment. She wouldn't allow bad things to happen to her people. She would end suffering, deformity, hunger, strife and misery for her people. She would be a caretaker god that refuses to throw her people to the wolves only to tell them they are at fault for being inferior and bragging constantly in all of her teachings about how superior she is over her creations. In other words, my god would be a god of love. I'll have to create that one myself because she doesn't exist in any of the religions of the world today.

I am so much on your side QuestionAuthority I can't adequately describe to you my feelings. I will instead try to inspire you with something I hope you will enjoy. Don't let any monotheistic god or any other divine being keep you back from doing what you love.   You are in control and I am on your side.

[QuestionAuthority]

My god would be a kind and gentile caretaker for her people instead of a lunatic hell-bent on the destruction of the earth. When they drift astray from her teachings she would caress them and help them back toward the path of enlightenment. She wouldn't allow bad things to happen to her people. She would end suffering, deformity, hunger, strife and misery for her people. She would be a caretaker god that refuses to throw her people to the wolves only to tell them they are at fault for being inferior and bragging constantly in all of her teachings about how superior she is over her creations. In other words, my god would be a god of love. I'll have to create that one myself because she doesn't exist in any of the religions of the world today.

QuestionAuthority it is clear from your signature that you care deeply about your fellow man and wish to help them. This is one of the most admirable character traits. Your questions are the same as those that caused me to turn away from religion in my younger years. That process was accelerated by the great uneducated masses cryptix mentions eager to tell me everything about their faith but responding like a deer in the headlights when challenged with difficult questions. Your queries are challenging ones. How can God an infinite being the ultimate giver allow horrible things to happen to people? How can a loving god permit suffering, deformity, hunger, strife and misery?

These are questions that have answers and these answers do not rely on blind faith but are instead logical and rational going far beyond the trite response of "God works in mysterious ways". The challenge, however, is that these answers require one to delve deep into the rich intellectual tradition of ethical monotheism which at first glance looks like a shallow pool but on deeper reflection is more of a vast ocean. Your God of love does exist and logic and reason can show you this.

Given the challenging nature of your questions, however, I will freely admit that I am not qualified to answer them. The best I can offer is to direct you to a source that I believe may answer them in a way you find satisfactory.

I would recommend to you to the book The Way of God: Derech Hashem by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. Which answers these questions logically and systematically in a very organized fashion.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/087306769X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/159-3751462-6767111?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=NM9R7T16A9G2147WGMJX&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687722&pf_rd_i=1598264672

There is a free class in Seattle that is currently going through this book chapter by chapter taught by Rabbi Mark Spiro. To start I would recommend just listening to the first class so you begin to understand how your questions can be answered see if you are interested at all in going further. The audio links can be found here:

http://www.livingjudaism.com/the-way-of-god.html

This class is obviously taught from the the perspective of the Jewish tradition but most of it is applicable to all variations of monotheism. I have found it to be interesting with vast philosophical depth and I am not Jewish.

The problem I have with lecturers like Rabbi Mark Spiro is that I have always believed they use modern thought processes to intellectualize historical mythology. There have always been carasmatic believable individuals at the heart of every religious movement (see Jim Jones). These carasmatic preachers may even have convinced themselves they are being honest, truthful and really helping people. In fact, they might actually help some societal misfits or weak willed people survive a difficult life path. They have the intellectual capacity to twist the meanings of ancient writings to suit the contemporary situation of man. But, when the direct word of a given god must be interpreted to suit the times or justified to create followers then that's a god not worth listening to. Any real gods words should be timeless.

Almost all religious texts of the world have, at least, some decent guidelines to follow for a happy and long life. Most of them don't really need be told to anyone to make people behave correctly because these rules are so simplistic and innate as to be almost child-like in their brevity. Don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, be good to your parents, etc, are so basic most children know them before they are able to speak. Religious texts aren't really necessary to teach these basics. If people aren't going to follow these rules all the bibles in the world won't make them. I have also have a problem when half or more of the rules (commandments) to live by are about "worship me because I'm so wonderful and if you don't I'm going to torture you forever". No carasmatic orator is going to be capable of justifying that for me.

Any gods word must be taken at face value. If that word is heinous at its core then I can't justify listening to or believing it is anything more than the ramblings of sadistic ancient men on papyrus. No silvered tongued orator of magnificent intellect will be capable of making me believe otherwise.

[CoinCube]

The problem I have with lecturers like Rabbi Mark Spiro is that I have always believed they use modern thought processes to intellectualize historical mythology. There have always been charismatic believable individuals at the heart of every religious movement (see Jim Jones). These charismatic preachers may even have convinced themselves they are being honest, truthful and really helping people. In fact, they might actually help some societal misfits or weak willed people survive a difficult life path. They have the intellectual capacity to twist the meanings of ancient writings to suit the contemporary situation of man. But, when the direct word of a given god must be interpreted to suit the times or justified to create followers then that's a god not worth listening to. Any real gods words should be timeless.

Just to clarify the class linked above is simply a live reading and discussion of the book Derekh Hashem (The Way of God) a philosophical text about God's purpose in Creation, justice, and ethics. Its author Moshe Chaim Luzzatto died in 1746. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto could arguably be considered a charismatic leader but he is a long dead one. His works have proved influential long after his death so personal charisma is less likely to be a factor. As in all things personal judgement, reason and logic must be applied. I agree with your statement that the word of God should be timeless.  

I have also have a problem when half or more of the rules (commandments) to live by are about "worship me because I'm so wonderful and if you don't I'm going to torture you forever". No charismatic orator is going to be capable of justifying that for me.

Any gods word must be taken at face value. If that word is heinous at its core then I can't justify listening to or believing it is anything more than the ramblings of sadistic ancient men on papyrus. No silvered tongued orator of magnificent intellect will be capable of making me believe otherwise.

This is a view I also understand. I read ancient scriptures as guidance from a far wiser being given to help a primitive and desperate mankind. A gift of truth delivered in a way to make it both functional and comprehensible to our limited intellects. You are not necessarily required to believe in eternal torment to believe in God other interpretations exist. The Old Testament for example has no talk of eternal torment. It simply says that iniquity will befall those who hate God and warns us that the penalty for certain actions is death. It is entirely possible that these are simply a warning, a request that we not kill and hurt ourselves for the iniquity is delivered not via divine retribution but the inevitable consequences of our own foolish choices.

[dippididodaday]

This is a view I also understand. I read ancient scriptures as guidance from a far wiser being given to help a primitive and desperate mankind. A gift of truth delivered in a way to make it both functional and comprehensible to our limited intellects. You are not necessarily required to believe in eternal torment to believe in God other interpretations exist. The Old Testament for example has no talk of eternal torment. It simply says that iniquity will befall those who hate God and warns us that the penalty for certain actions is death. It is entirely possible that these are simply a warning, a request that we not kill and hurt ourselves for the iniquity is delivered not via divine retribution but the inevitable consequences of our own foolish choices.

Ancient writings were written by clever intellectual writers to steer the path of a grouping of people. Over millennia a number of these texts have survived and have been filled in, adjusted and edited to comply with the at-that-time need for steering paths. These writings are a religio-cultural product and have ever been used as a monetary-power base. This will NEVER EVER change. In the world of today, these writings, because they are (all of them) used in the buildings with steeples or domes that I see fit to symbolize with the places where tragically, the wonderful idea of God has been buried for millennia now. I think it is now the time for the divine to rise up outside of these institutions that are all based and fundamentally structured upon these "ancient scriptures".

[Semvak]

Yes, i believe in god. Cause we are here now and life. and see a grace of everyday, then miracle from GOD. when it's impossible be IM_POSSIBLE.

[CoinCube]

... I think it is now the time for the divine to rise up outside of these institutions that are all based and fundamentally structured upon these "ancient scriptures".

I believe in God. He is my very best imaginary friend.  

I do not usually bother to reply to people who are obviously not interested in serious discussion but I will make an exception this time.

Fix your life? Fix your metaphysics by Bruce Charlton
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/06/fix-your-life-fix-your-metaphysics.html

Metaphysics are your fundamental assumptions. These are chosen: they were chosen by you (although you probably weren't aware of choosing them, but just passively accepted them).

Fundamental assumptions are chosen - but they are not arbitrary; because the assumptions have consequences. You can choose whatever you want to believe - but sometimes you will not be able to make yourself live-by these chosen beliefs; and other times you will live by them (including thinking by them) such that they lead to nonsensical and therefore self-refuting outcomes.

The trouble is that in a world where people have stopped thinking- and when their assumptions lead to incoherent, nonsensical conclusions, instead of sorting-out their metaphysics - they just stop thinking (easier to do than ever before in human history - due to the ubiquity of mass media and social media).

Anyway - my point is that if you have certain (very common) assumptions, then you will either have a nihilistic, hope-less and despairing world view --- or else you will have to stop yourself thinking about anything serious.

There are innumerable commonly-held assumptions that lead to this: that Man has no free will, that the world is either random and unpredictable or else rigidly predetermined, that nothing exists except what has been described by 'science', that morality is a matter of opinion, that beauty is wholly in the eye of the beholder... oh, there are dozens of such.

Indeed, most of people's primary assumptions nowadays are of a type that lead to nonsensical or incoherent conclusions - so it is futile to complain about the low standard of rational public debate when rational debate is only possible on the basis that people are able and willing to examine and revise their assumptions when they lead to absurd outcomes.

Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

Whereas (as quickly becomes apparent in any disagreement) unless there is agreement on metaphysical assumptions then the cannot even be agreement on what counts as evidence, leave aside the matter of evaluating the strength of evidence...

[dippididodaday]

I do not usually bother to reply to people who are obviously not interested in serious discussion but I will make an exception this time................

...........Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

I am not interested in serious discussion - I am interested in discussion. You are breaking your own rules here by making this exception. You have to ask yourself why did you do that? I think I might know the answer to this question and guess what - it's not even close to metaphysical. 

I agree with the most absurd metaphysical assumption of all in that all decisions should be made on the basis of evidence. Why? Because I am my own measuring stick and always will be and I am not the only one. I am the first evidence of any and all metaphysics and I will continue to state to you that I am evidential. 

[CoinCube]

I am not interested in serious discussion...

Ok

[designerusa]

I don't believe in God. The idea of there being someone who knows everything about me, who decides what is right and what is wrong and makes the decision when to take lives scares me. I hate it when people die and others say "God took their lives". No! That people did not die because God wanted it. They died because they died.
God is not more than an idea, somebody else's tale. There is no real evidence to believe in God. All that we see in nature was there and will be there.
God is an imaginary figure, which helps the society to bind together to do good to each other. But real good has to happen as a result of your love and wish.

yes , god isnt just  more than a imaginary thing. there is no god who ruins people's life. people want to believe some thing so they believe every kind of god which they created many years before.