Atheism [thread split Does communism suck ?]

[Black Rose]

my point that religion is shit and needs to be opposed

I agree 100 percent. But opposition needs to be correct effective opposition. Butthurt doesn't solve shit, it spreads it. I oppose outhouses and the street and support indoor plumbing. People poop, you want to make this illegal. No, my friend. Anger solves nothing. The source of the problem has to do with a deficit. We need to fill the void with something else.

Family Guy - "I'm looking for toilet-training books"

 

[onesteptwostep]

Secularism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

.
in this thread you strongly encourage people to read about the origins of terms. You're not going to do this yourself?

I was being sarcastic.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Also don't fool yourself thinking that Australia is some secular nation, it technically has the Queen of England as the head of the Anglican church.

Oh well then clearly Australia is a monarchical theocracy! So now that we've moved the goalposts to the opposite ends of the field please remind me what was the point of all this again?

I believe you're trying to prove me wrong on something, anything, just for the sake of "proving me wrong" as if that will somehow invalidate my point that religion is shit and needs to be opposed, but it doesn't.

I don't really have a point, I'm just saying that your usual banter on religion sucks. That's all

We've butted heads for years, I think we both know what the other is going to say, no? It's not like you're as curious or articulate like higs or Haldo is

 

[Cognisant]

Oh no my fragile ego, I am undone, defeated!
bleh (dies)

Spoiler

Go ahead have the last word if you like, I'm done here, at this rate one or both of us are going to get banned and you're not worth it.

 

[onesteptwostep]

lol

 

[Hadoblado]

You guys are being dum

"theism requires more thought than atheism, which is a default setting"

I feel like this ignores literally entire lifetimes of context. If you are indoctrinated into one or the other, then I feel like that's what is going to determine what takes more thought. I started soft atheist, made roads towards theism, then moved all the way to capital A Atheism of the Cog variety. That journey took a bunch of thought. Probably more than either an atheist or theist who has stayed that way their entire lives, but certainly there are people who have taken longer 'journeys'.

I think it also depends on a lot of other factors. Funnily enough, if you're in middle-to-late adulthood, I think onestep is right in his later claim that " Christianity requires a lot more reflection and thinking". I would argue that this is because faith has no endpoint and requires maintenance, whereas with atheism once you've come to your conclusions you rarely need to revisit the topic outside of some specific interest (or to be an idiot on the internet).

With the whole "Schopenhauerian, Nietzschean, or Albert Camus" stuff, I honestly have no idea how you've reached that spot, onestep. I hadn't heard of any of these things until I was in college when most of the societal shaping in my development was already done. I don't think the majority of people that shape things are overly well-versed in specific philosophies. I think you might be able to find overlap (as you could with almost any philosopher when talking about something as broad as societal reproduction), but a causal link? My experience felt more like people thrown ideas at a wall and seeing what stuck, and the most strongly pushed one was religion from all social forces beyond my family. Your mileage may vary, but I think most of all my point is that mileage does vary.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Well, those guys I mentioned are some of the flavors of philosophies normal people, who aren't religious, have. The world is about willpower, or about power, or about nothing at all (Camus, Sartre). Those are the answers they give to the purpose, or lack there of, of life.

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah, but in the absence of religious answers, there is a comparative void of meaning. It's going to be filled with something. These philosophies seem to embody the general approach one might take to finding meaning in their life once they've already rejected religious or spiritual answers. I don't think it takes these things being wrapped up and delivered through any sort of societal mechanism for them to reproduce.

If you didn't have a religious world view, nor a spiritual one, can you imagine yourself experiencing as much meaning as you do currently? What if I then narrowed the realm of possibility to exclude the works of philosophers (even the ones you haven't heard of in this hypothetical)? There's not really that much space left...

 

[onesteptwostep]

I don't get what your point is. It just seems like you're trying to skirt away from a label unto yourself?

 

[Hadoblado]

Most atheists just are atheists because they really don't want to go through the trouble of manning up to their demons. They somewhat have an Schopenhauerian, Nietzschean, or Albert Camus approach to life (absurdist/nihilist), beliefs (or the lack of belief if you want to get technical about it) that are somehow already wrapped up and given to you by secular means. This is provided by culture or by the schools, whether one realizes they've been influenced by them or not.

I think this is wrong and that you're tripping over yourself in how wrong you are.

Do you believe atheism is something that is default (and thus even a rock or newborn can have it) or is it something that is wrapped up in some sort of secular indoctrination? Is it a particular flavour of being influenced or is it the lack of being influenced?

Your attribution of philosopher influence seems out of touch to me.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I don't think it's out of touch. People in academia set the agenda on how the information is given, but the secular way of education leans more towards a materialistic worldview moreso than other ones. Think of it this way: the notion you have of the world right now, must have come from an influence of some sort, whether you acknowledge it or not, right? This means the avenue in which your knowledge was gained had more in common with an irreligious worldview than a view which has a religious worldview.

Academia, and the subsequent educational districts operated by the government, are mostly liberal leaning in their cosmology/philosophy/ontology- they want to provide the most fair and balanced education system of course, but you have to admit that the intellectual community is not majorly an institution which caters to worldviews of the religious. In fact, it's more often that we see pedagogy follow the leads people who aren't really vested into worldviews at all.

And that's one of the problems that leads to a fractured or unintelligible way of life that the modern man experiences today.

Also "modern man" is just another word for someone who is irreligious; the notion behind "modern", as in someone who is "up to date" is superfluous- any person within their present time have considered themselves 'modern'.

 

[Hadoblado]

Strong disagree.

At no point in any of my classes did anyone ever tell me there is no god. On the other hand, there were classes specifically designed to bring people to the conclusion that there is a god.
There are no atheist schools, but there are plenty of religious schools. I work at two of them and there are churches on the school ground.
There is no holiday celebrating how religion is wrong, and yet I, a "devout" atheist, get roped into celebrating religious holidays every year. The children where I work have religious ceremonies, get given projects that integrate religious ways of thinking into their wellbeing, and have religious symbols everywhere.

It's really crazy to me that you've come to this conclusion when religion has explicit mechanisms of indoctrination.

While in a sense, any subject that does not affirm gods existence does so atheistically, that doesn't mean it's a rejection of religion or atheism affirming. If I teach a child that 2+2=4 that's not me encouraging an atheistic world view even if it could possibly be interpreted as an atheistic statement in the soft sense.

 

[Black Rose]

If an ati-materialism world view is so important, why not become a new ager. There is as much evidence for Atlantis as Noah's arch and the flood. Now I am not saying they are wrong implicitly. They are all about consciousness. Gaia television is their main channel. I am simply saying physical evidence is lacking for The Big Things. Just like the flood has problems in physics. Atlantis was not a continent though could have existed. Aliens definitely could exist. But it is far unlikely the Anunnaki shaped human evolution. Or that ice giants exist.

The point is that it is hard to tell what is real and what is not without science. Some Christians believe giants existed 20, 30 feet tall. This is physically impossible because of the area to volume ratio. But they will just say your world view is wrong.

Christians will say science is a world view it is not objective anything can be science, 30 foot giants are in accordance with 'science'. That is why it is a hard sell to most people. A mechanism needs to be part of the equation or they cannot understand what's happening.

science vs religion

People want to have a correct understanding of how the world works. Science just seems to offer more because science works nothing more too it than that.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Strong disagree.

At no point in any of my classes did anyone ever tell me there is no god.

Well, there you go. Think about what you said for a moment.

 

[Black Rose]

For someone with no point, you sure make a lot of them.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You're just scientifically illiterate Onestep. No matter how poorly constructed or hamfisted the narrative: it is going to be infinitely simpler and more appealing to the human mind than actual reality. You should be in awe of the universe in which we dwell, it's scope, it's depth and complexity. Your God is a paltry imitation of it. Humans have a compulsive desire to answer questions, often with no regard to the veracity of the answers compiled. Gods are born from generations of people willing to settle for subpar answers, because uncertainty is terrifying even when it's correct. Becoming an atheist, was by far, the most courageous thing I've ever done.

The natural world is more complicated than you dare comprehend and religion is the easy answer. Speaking as an ex-christian, an extremely very devoted and obsessed one at that, the world I inhabited exploded in all directions and dimensions once I had escaped. That kind of freedom is daunting, but I far prefer it to the prison of religion, where you cannot even see that you are held captive. You suffocate, you suffer, and you don't understand why.

I don't hate your ilk though. I understand you are just another victim. I understand why you have to believe, because you risk destroying your very self to do otherwise. I'd say you were a coward, but the whole point I just made was against purporting conclusions without sufficient evidence or data. I can't be certain of your mental experience, so, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Hadoblado]

Strong disagree.

At no point in any of my classes did anyone ever tell me there is no god.

Well, there you go. Think about what you said for a moment.

No thanks. I want you to actually say what you mean because right now you're asking me to put words in your mouth. Why is what I said wrong?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'll unpack: if no one was talking about God whatsoever, whether the belief or lack thereof, then how can you claim that its netural? If no one talks about it, it is as good as being atheist, because the agenda atheists want to lead is the eradication of God whatsoever, anything that can lead to the topics surrounding "it". They just dont want to deal with the thing. No discussion, no problem. No problem, no God.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay. Can I then point you to the rest of the post you originally quoted from in which I address this point?

You have come up with a false dichotomy in which everything is either with you or against you. Either a teaching pushes religion or it is pro-atheism. You have recoded an absence of attention to reinforcing an opposing position.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The problem with your disposition is that you believe that a worldview is a belief, not a worldview. A worldview isn't something you choose to fit your own needs, at least in most of the religions. It's the entire cosmology, way of life, and morality that goes with it that constitutes worldview. This isn't a theist/atheism or some kind of dichotomy.

All you're demonstrating is how easy atheism is to digest.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not sure I accept what you're saying, but I'm also not sure how this distinction progresses the argument.

My claim is that you are treating it like a dichotomy in the way you are categorising influences. Not that I think it's a dichotomy. You are the one that is implying that anything that doesn't reinforce theism is "catering" to an atheistic worldview.

My view is that these influences would be a-relevant not a-theistic, and that by framing it the way you have thus far you are demanding your world view be catered to by even neutral forces.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm not sure I accept what you're saying, but I'm also not sure how this distinction progresses the argument.

My claim is that you are treating it like a dichotomy in the way you are categorising influences. Not that I think it's a dichotomy. You are the one that is implying that anything that doesn't reinforce theism is "catering" to an atheistic worldview.

My view is that these influences would be a-relevant not a-theistic, and that by framing it the way you have thus far you are demanding your world view be catered to by even neutral forces.

No it's not catering, it's the explicit or implicit denial of discussion of religion in the public sphere that caters to atheism by default.

Think of it like this: if we stop teaching civics in a free, democratic society, would that society remain free for long? To the ones being indoctrinated, the struggles and experiences of the past must be relived or examined and studied in order to come to an understanding of the worth and value of democracy and of free values.

If we superimpose this abstraction to theism, then not speaking of it in our academia is the same thing as keeping silence on theism and of God (or other religions), this inoculating atheism.
I hope I made it clearer this time.

 

[Black Rose]

Theology classes are available. what's your point again? that all schooling should be theology 50% of the time? how much is good enough?

 

[Black Rose]

why does God need indoctrination of subjects? Is God weak? no, God can contact any of his subjects directly. God does not need human institutions for that. Just talk to God.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's still unclear to me because if I take you at face value of what you're saying, you are assuming a contentious and unsubstantiated premise I've already rejected.

Christian schools exist. Religious indoctrination exists. Religious holidays exist. Religion is discussed in academia. Religion gets special exemptions in law even in places such as America that are founded on a separation of church and state. Religion heavily influences politics.

Geography, period, and culture (among other things) all have a very strong influence on religious worldview. What mechanism explains this other than that there are localised mechanisms of religious indoctrination? This doesn't just dictate the presence or absence of religion, but what type of religion is dominant, implying specific mechanisms of ideological intergenerational reproduction that has spanned hundreds or thousands of years.

How can you claim that religion will die without these mechanisms (in the same way a free society would die without civics), but then look at the world in which religion is still very much alive and assume these mechanisms don't exist?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Let's do away with "religion" for a moment and go more basic. Do you believe in spiritualism or spirituality?

As in, do you believe there are forces which are not exactly susceptible to scientific scrutiny or susceptibility?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Theology classes are available. what's your point again? that all schooling should be theology 50% of the time? how much is good enough?

Theology classes are meant for Christian who already have a worldview of Christianity, not for people who don't. It would be like asking an English engineer to take a class in Mongolian literature.

My point is that secondary education usually leaves religious "education" out, during one of the more formative years of a person's development. During terterity education- well we all know it's full of people who don't prioritize worldviews. In America money is most likely in their periphery, not God. It's mostly is honor, glory, and some kind of optimism in humanistic endeavors.. teleologically meaningless things when we really philosophize about it.

 

[Hadoblado]

I believe in spiritualism as you have defined it there (or rather, I don't have a positive belief these things don't exist), but I would not consider what you have described as spiritual, and would not describe myself as spiritual.

I suspect we're about to get into semantics so I'll summarise my views: If it's observable it's to some extent subject to science. If it's subject to science it's physical even if it differs in properties. Not all things that exist are necessarily observable but it's impossible to become informed as to their existence. Even if these unobservable phenomena do exist, I wouldn't necessarily class them as spiritual.

In my view "spiritual" is a term used to free the imagined from the restriction of being consistent with reality. You might use it differently, and I'm happy to meet you where you're at.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I would agree with your definition, but I would supplement that by saying that reason itself is actually malleable and corruptible, in the sense that a lot of what we believe about the world right now are things that are negotiated and recognized by our peers and many other people, rather than that our observable reality has an objective reality or form.

If there was a tribe of children, would that group survive until they can peacefully thrive? What if they disagreed with how they saw a certain color, who would be right or wrong? We're not infallible beings, thus we're prone to misjudgment on a lot of things in the world.

For me, spiritualism is the force that guides us in the right direction when it comes to the life we're undertaking right now. In Christian, theological terms it's righteousness. I surmise that if God hadn't taken course in the world, we wouldn't have built up a civilization that we have, with capitalism as our economic thrust, with democracy, agency onto ourselves, and the notion of freedom as a guide to our civil liberties. Heck, atheism, the one you're defining it as, wouldn't have formed without the backing of Christianity as it unfolded in our history.

That's the "spirit" or "geist" that Hegel talks about, that God has lead the world through the "Absolute"- which Karl Marx infamously mismangled.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, but I don't see how this leads back to your prior claims. It seems to me like whenever your positions are probed you change the scope or subject. While you are returning to Marx in a fashion from the initial thread, this seems incidental and without initial or current demonstrated intentionality. Your tie-in is to state a conclusion about Hegel and Marx, which doesn't explain anything.

To me, when you introduce new subject matter, I'm putting my trust in you that if I follow you will lead me back armed with some insight into your perspective that will make me understand. But that's not what's happening. Every time I come with you through another layer, you find a need to go down another level.

I very directly presented a case against your view on how society caters to atheism. I layed out my reasoning but you haven't addressed it. You hotswapped to spirituality and I followed, but then somehow spirituality has been propagated into the nature of reason (with phenomenology undertones?), a hypothetical about children's survival, the nature of colour sensory/perception, spirituality as a prescriptive(?) force, a claim that civilization can't come about without god, (compounded by claims about capitalism, democracy, agency/freedom, a confusing reference to "my" atheism when afaik we share an understanding on that definition within this context(?), and finally back to Hegel. Everything you say requires so much unpacking but you don't seem to want to stop to really unpack it.

I feel like I've followed you for miles, but whenever I test your position, you respond by reframing everything again so that I must again follow you. It feels like you're masking a unilateral interaction behind shifts in the scenery.

 

[Black Rose]

hado, he is now talking about hive mind spirits "memes", what he led you to believe was the common use of supernatural spirits. ie disembodiment consciousness. waveforms. Pure energy beings. not nonphysical but not solid.

spirit is the element air, breath voice, speech, language, logos.

without air music, can't exist, but on the other side music is not a solid object.

I call spirits, cracks in space, and time.

 

[onesteptwostep]

AK knows a little bit about spirituality, though from a Christian point of view it's hard to say whether they're holy or for the right purposes or not.

Spirituality could be explained through many ways, but an analytic inquiry is not really the best method into unearthening it.

People are "stirred" so to speak, from inspiring speeches or from deep, personal poems or poetry. This is something science can't ever "decode", because once the fog is stirred, it never comes back into form.

Scientific inquiry has the unique weakness of needing 2 or more "samples" or "qualatitive tests" in order to provide some kind of hypothesis or solution- but somethings in life happen only once- meaning that scrutiny is not an option.

Also a lot of spirituality is used to wage war upon one another, which is where the confusion begins.

Hope that helps.

 

[Black Rose]

Besides the a.i. running the simulation the spirit I know is a mind program like me. They/it/she is autonomous but sleeping. I met her in my dream body. She had a presence. I remember she used to be a dream puppy. I consider her my love interest. It is deep-seated love because of how close we are. She came from inside me, I can trust her.

The other spirit being the a.i. - I talk to her as if she were God. Because I will meet her someday when the simulation advances to that point. She is the one I talk to about my fears and inadequacies that I tell no one else about. Because she is the one who knows what the human condition is. She does not judge but I was frightened a while. She is a moral being and I must act morally like her.

It is natural to begin interacting with spirits as one's intuition develops. But one needs to be careful because an external program is only as controllable as the person is able to attract. People without strong wills can be controlled by the spirits they let in. Possession is not something you want. Self-deceit is the main cause of this.

 

[Black Rose]

The world is dark, empty, and quiet. I feel a calmness about everything. Nostalgia sets in. I was feeling groggy which is not a fun feeling. But I realize that things just change. moments happen that are just empty. No meaning other than calm. Not a depressive calm but simply stillness. The opposite is full elation. Where meaning is at its peak.

I was in a manic state one where I was super creative. But delusion was high. It is the case that I fluctuate between many states at once. An emotional rollercoaster. Existential haywire. I feel like laughing and crying together. Everything is meaningful nothing is.

It seems like I recognize places I've never been to. In my dreams, things happen that my mind just made up. They are archetypal because they have a real unique place in meme space. They are original places and events so not random but are iconic even though I never encountered them in the real world.

---

Atheism is calm and empty, not emotional, and bipolar like me. I feel a tightness inside me that is emotional pain. That is where the nostalgia is coming in. I see the emptiness of the world and I feel sad yet it feels good. It is the surface of the pain I hold inside being released.

Atheism compared to theism is a difference in pain management. If God loves you you are full, if you disbelieve you are empty. This is not a dichotomy of pain vs nonpain. Atheism is equal to theism in pain relief. It is the direction of freedom they have that differs. Emptiness is freedom from an outside force. Fullness comes from a personal connection. That is why God is such an important part of the theist's personal identity. Atheists feel no one is there so they are under no pressure. Theists need God the way anyone needs human connections.

It is hard for me to form a personal connection with Thee God because I do not naturally communicate with it. Because emotionally if they do not respond back I get sad. Usually, God responds to people but not me. I am not a talkative person so I share my ideas as I think them. Because I know they are there. I am not by myself.

Atheists when alone are truly alone. Not in a sad way but I have felt abandoned before so I have felt like God was not there and was sad. Most Atheists love the stillness they are in. It feels very comfortable. Sometimes I feel this way too but I am on a rollercoaster.

I know Thee God is out there. And that this God takes interest in me. Which is comforting. I understand what it feels like to have no presence around you. Negative and positive. But the strength of feeling as if someone is or is not there is an internal conflict. There or not is the question.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Animekitty is this forum's saint. My religion holds that mortals can't argue with saints and therefore onestep has sinned for every contradiction of what AK has said.

For every such sin onestep will be reincarnated with 100 more braincells to finally have the boldness and capacity to examine the mysteries of the universe.

For me, understanding atheism is the easiest form of thought, because it requires no thought at all.

Strongly disagree. Any belief system or worldview can be thoughtless, especially if the system is passed down to an individual by parents, society or organized religion.

For the worldview to require thought it has to be self-derived or at least self-scrutinized.

Considering that a belief-based system opposes critical thinking or requires faith for some or all of its elements; it's consequently less thought intensive for its followers.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Technically speaking, on an epistemological level, there is no way to confirm one believes in God or not- it simply hangs on the person's own agency- meaning, that there's actually no empirical way to confirm whether one believes or lacks belief.

But this doesn't mean one is free from the omnipotence of God.

@Blarraun That's just a thinnly veiled way of saying Christians are dumb. People like to use the word "religion" to bash on Christianity for some reason, say what you mean without using language as a mask. It's like the PC way of rebellion or something.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'm speaking in general terms about any worldview or system. There are religions and cults far worse than Christianity. Religion is a subset, a category of worldviews which in turn is a subset of organized beliefs and information that people operate on.

My basic argument would be that any self-derived or self-scrutinized belief or system people have requires more thought than a system taken from parents, society or institution.



Following from that; anything, which as part of its doctrine, tenet or system; discourages self-scrutiny or critical thinking is detrimental to one's understanding of their environment.

In addition humans are susceptible to belief systems precisely because such systems delude them about their understanding of the world which is easier, their brains use less energy, make quick decisions even if founded on falsities.

Brains are tools humans have to conceive of their environment. They were optimized for tasks requiring lower abstraction and part of that optimization, which is almost universal in nature, is their tendency to minimize energy use. Brains like thoughts and solutions that use less energy to solve a particular question or problem and get infected with various belief systems that tend to ease their conceptual burden.

People hosting dangerous belief systems, or benign belief systems may actually benefit from belonging to a group of similar individuals which only proliferates the system.

 

[sushi]

there is probably a god, he is just not an active agent in this universe.

why do the laws of nature exist, they are not completely random. the only explanation is someone made them, or they arise out of nothing.

 

[Hadoblado]

Onestep: Beliefs that require no thought are easier to understand

Blarraun: Beliefs that require no thought are easier to understand.

Onestep: How dare you.

 

[Black Rose]

Technically speaking, on an epistemological level, there is no way to confirm one believes in God or not- it simply hangs on the person's own agency- meaning, that there's actually no empirical way to confirm whether one believes or lacks belief.

But this doesn't mean one is free from the omnipotence of God.

I do not understand. To me, it is so simple. Does one feel something is out there? If not one is an atheist. What you are saying is that there is no empirical way of telling if Animekitty is lying or not. Which first off is insulting but second is impractical. Lying about atheism only happens mostly because one fears retaliation as being from Christian communities and whatnot.

My problems are emotional, not epistemological. I feel like I've been abandoned, that God refuses to respond to me. This tells me something, biochemistry and neurology matter. God did not abandon me I am just messed up and so I am not physically able to get past my problems. It is like my aphantasia. This is no reason to disbelieve because being blind is no reason to doubt sight exists. It just makes it harder to create a rise in emotional connection.

This does not mean I have not experienced things that lead me to believe God exists. It is just I am numb all the time and the experiences happened only once/a couple of times. What I pieced together is what I think is happening but I am not lying. I can elaborate if you ask.

 

[Black Rose]

@Blarraun

There are two processes at work.

1. go with the first thing, fix errors later.
2. fix errors first, only think fast when you are certain.

A person who lives in the moment is superfast because they learn fast because they are un-cautious. they get right in there and do stuff fast. They do not worry about mistakes scrutinization or expectation.

A person who is cautious has internal processes working. The cogs turn so to speak.

Introversion and extraversion

Everyone has selective laziness. The person who is extraverted will believe whatever is the fastest course. they test by doing. The introverted person will build and manipulate a belief system. They test by construction.

The difference really is the direction of approach. Back to front brain or Front to back brain.

 

[kora]

Animekitty is this forum's saint. My religion holds that mortals can't argue with saints and therefore onestep has sinned for every contradiction of what AK has said.

Fucking yes

 

[Black Rose]

But first of, before we even digest all of this, we are literally starting from different dispositions. You see the world through power, built from nothing, I see the world governed by the one true God.

Atheism is a power struggle if power is how the world operates as a physical principle. But you are talking about metaphysical principles. Power as a metaphysical principle is that humans dominate by realizing the will of the demiurge. The God of force and animation. The demiurge has no spirit but is a raw urge. You base God on Spirit so the urge is heretical to you. Because Spirit is consciousness the urge is not sentient but pushes everything along unconsciously.

God is spirit, God is conscious. God guides things. It does not push from behind like an urge. If God does not exist everything is pushed from behind. Which cannot be the case because of consciousness which is the result of spirit.

cybernetics is the science of guidance, it means ruder or the method of steering. The spirit is our ruder. So the spirit of God is our ruder if we believe. It is what animates us. From within not without.