Atheists: Your Perception of God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Color me skeptical. You've been on the forums long enough to be confronted with god-concepts that are flatly absurd to disbelieve in. For most of human history, gods were basically mythopoetic personifications of very real forces that only someone who has seriously lost touch with reality would deny the existence of. The gods include natural forces, like the sun - which is quite possibly the most widely deified natural force in human history. The gods include social forces, like war - whose touch has cut deep and bloody swaths across human history as well. The gods include abstract concepts, like chaos - often characterized as a primordial abyss out of which all else came. If all god-concepts throughout human history are taken in sum, they very literally describe all of reality.

What I usually get from "atheists" when I point all this out is "but those things aren't gods," which is rubbish. The same rubbish is uttered by "theists" who insist their understanding of the gods is the only correct one. Neither stand scrutiny and recognizing how different peoples and cultures have understood gods. I always like it when I find folks who go "yeah, I understand this is how gods are understood in this context and respect that; to me, those things aren't gods because I define gods to be this; that's why I call myself an X, Y, or Z." Salix's question attempts to get at some of that important nuance, and I applaud that.

There's a difference between a force of nature and the god associated with the force of nature. I think you acknowledged this yourself when you talked about "deifying" things.

Worshipping, say, a rain god is not a matter of saying "yup - there's the rain, and it's my god all by itself." The god is typically the intentional intelligence that causes the rain, whether it's a mystical being that controls the rain or an intelligence assumed to be embued in the rain itself.

Ancient peoples were generally sincere with their imprecatory prayer: when they prayed for rain, they thought they were expressing their wishes to something that was capable of hearing them, understanding the request, and acting on it intentionally.

You seem to be suggesting that ancient peoples were all actually materialists who were only doing religion as some sort of performance art; this doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[Audie]

No. Artifice is representational. Like a "heart" shape (not really in the shape of a physical heart) represents the idealized experience of love. "Jesus", for example, is artifice. "Jesus" is a symbolic representational character in a mythic religious story about the salvific effects of trusting in divine benevolence (love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, etc.) and living by it.
I don't care what atheists believe or don't believe, as I have posted many times, now. I care what they assert as truth, and why. I also care what theists post as truth, and why. Because I'm looking for the "truth" that produces the most logical and positive results.
It's the mystery of all mysteries, the answer to all questions, and the source of all that is or ever will be important. So I don't see how it's not grand or divine. Personally, I think y'all look a little silly trying to downplay it like it's nothing.

Generally you did ok on this. First paragraph,
Of course, who would argue that?

Second- what people think and say in this are pretty much the same,so seems you do care,
as much as you talk about atheists.

Assert as true- an atheist will say he doesn't believe, give reasons, but not claim truth or knowledge re "god". Full many a theist does though, maybe most ( like you? ) claim, pretend they know "god"is real, in the worlds most data- free assertion ever. Your complaint seems backwards to me.

I do wish you well in your quest for ultimate truth. Your chance of getting there is
somewhere in the negative minus zero range, but, its your deal and it interests you.
Go for it.

I don't recall anyone saying its silly or any of that, let them if they do.
Not worth your time or temper.



You might like an Emmylou Harris song. Cup of kindness.

A lil gift from your frenemy
Min

 

[Quintessence]

Only a madman would deny the gods! We see them with our very own gods!

Well, when folks deny "god" they are reacting against a specific god-concept. I can't fault anyone for that, really. I went down that path myself when I had my "atheist" phase as a teenager. I thought that the Christian concept of god was all there was, and even though I was aware of other theological options, I interpreted those through Christian theological assumptions because I couldn't think about it in any other way at the time. Thus my youthful self proclaimed theism was stupid and therefore people who believed in gods were delusional, stupid, ignorant, or naive (and I associated those things with the word "god" back then too). Truth was, I was the stupid one and was too ignorant and naive to understand that at the time. Maybe I could have come to a properly reasoned atheism eventually, but once I got exposed to more theology that's just not what happened in my case.

There's a difference between a force of nature and the god associated with the force of nature. I think you acknowledged this yourself when you talked about "deifying" things.

Worshipping, say, a rain god is not a matter of saying "yup - there's the rain, and it's my god all by itself." The god is typically the intentional intelligence that causes the rain, whether it's a mystical being that controls the rain or an intelligence assumed to be embued in the rain itself.

Ancient peoples were generally sincere with their imprecatory prayer: when they prayed for rain, they thought they were expressing their wishes to something that was capable of hearing them, understanding the request, and acting on it intentionally.

You seem to be suggesting that ancient peoples were all actually materialists who were only doing religion as some sort of performance art; this doesn't seem reasonable.

I don't know why you keep interpreting things this way, other than to surmise it's the only way you can interpret it within your worldview. In theologies were gods/nature are not two, there isn't a "difference" between the gods and reality/nature/universe like you are probably interpreting within your worldview. The notion of "materialism" also breaks down when this "difference" isn't recognized, and in any case, the question of what the fundamental substances of the universe are is a separate (though at times related) question than that of the gods, or what is worshiped. And those are separate questions from what is believed about the gods, or what their nature is interpreted to be. The long and the short of it is, even if you have a point, what you say here doesn't negate these nuances and the diverse ways in which human societies have approached answering these questions. I prefer it when (a)theists acknowledge this complexity rather than downplay or ignore it.

 

[McBell]

So how do you carry on discussion about God when you have no idea what the discussion partner is speaking of?

Um...
Is that not what discussion is for, to learn what others consider "god"?
Believe it or not I have had discussions with numerous people about god and have learned quite a few different versions of it.
I say it because not all people think of god as a him.

So now discussions about god have to start with understanding the nuances of their particular deity.
I have found that no two are exactly the same.

 

[McBell]

IMO, that definition is probably the most useless definition of all of them.

I did not say it was useful.
When you cannot get two people to agree on what god is outside of "the highest higher power"...
Again, my experience is that each person has their own unique idea of what god is with various overlaps with other peoples own unique idea of what god is.
If their is enough over lap they may consider it the same god.

 

[ppp]

When people of varying religions speak of God, they typically are speaking of their perception of God from their own religious experience unless otherwise specified.

When someone speaks to you of God, what springs to mind?

If you were raised into a religion and now identify with atheism, is it the god of that religion? Is it the God you think the speaker is speaking of?

What God do you default to?

At one time it would have been the default I grew up with. But these days, it really depends on that particular someone, how they are dressed/adorned, and the words they use around their mention of God. Even here in the se United States, where you cannot swing a cat without hitting a Baptist, I run into enough non-Christians that I don't assume that anymore. As a rule.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because I'm looking for the "truth" that produces the most logical and positive results.

Then don't call it truth. Call it convenience or something like that.

 

[Curious George]

When having a conversation about a god, it is the other person who believes in a god, therefore I am always discussing their version of a god. I do not have a "version" of something that I do not believe exists.

You don't have a concept of vampires, leprechauns, etc?

I find it very interesting the number of atheists here who adamantly deny they have a god concept when making comments that seem to contradict that very sentiment.

 

[ppp]

You don't have a concept of vampires, leprechauns, etc?

I find it very interesting the number of atheists here who adamantly deny they have a god concept when making comments that seem to contradict that very sentiment.

Just as with gods I know of a lot of concepts of both vampires (stoker, noferatu, buffy, rice, harris, hamilton) and of leprechauns (Classical Irish, Bell, Darby O'Gill, Mad Sweeney, etc).

Is knowing all of those vampiric and leprechaun concepts all that you mean by [having] a concept?

 

[PureX]

But if you're looking for truth, how can you be sure what they are saying is not true just because their attitude and approach is off?

It's logically apparent, and does not function as true.

All of this is just your opinion, though.

The opinion functions as true, or it doesn't.

If some atheists did not attack theist, their argument would still be the same.

And it would still be illogical and dysfunctional.

Just because they cannot justify it "in a way you accept"...

They can't justify it in the the way THEY claim to accept.

You said there is no right or wrong-so maybe god is just a scapegoat for your problems with those atheists who attack theists.

I'm just calling it like I see it. If you're so concerned with who's "right", then YOU should care about this absurd double-standard.

Also, attacking and presenting an argument are two different things. If I said god does not exist, I'm not attacking you. I'm just making an argument. If I supported that argument, that does not mean it's not justified.

Unless your 'support' is nonsensical.

And you are not all atheists. You keep taking my generalizations personally. Why? I'm just responding to your posts. I'm not attacking you, personally.

 

[PureX]

That's not content. That is a question with no answer.

Nevertheless, it exists, and it is of great importance to a great many humans. It is the essence of theism. It is the reason humans create god-concepts.

It isn't even clear that it is a well formed question. Why would I expect there to be a single 'source' for all that is? Or that a single thing is the 'sustenance'? or that there is a 'purpose'?

No one knows the nature of the source. That's why it's a mystery. Why are you expecting humans to make these determinations for you so that you can have easier, more specific questions to contemplate?

There is clearly NOT a single 'answer to all of our questions'. Or a single 'meaning of it all'.

And how did you determine this?

It seems to me that your 'content' is pretty thin and useless.

It seems to me that your bias is getting the better of you.

 

[PureX]

Then don't call it truth. Call it convenience or something like that.

It's as much truth as any human is going to get. And it's the word we use. So it's the word I use.

 

[PureX]

Generally you did ok on this. First paragraph,
Of course, who would argue that?

Second- what people think and say in this are pretty much the same,so seems you do care,
as much as you talk about atheists.

I said I care about what people assert to be true, and why. What I don't care about is the extent to which they "believe in" or "disbelieve in" it. What other people believe or disbelieve has nothing to do with me, or anyone else. for that matter.

Assert as true- an atheist will say he doesn't believe, give reasons, but not claim truth or knowledge re "god".

But we all know that's just a dishonest ploy. They clearly believe that no gods exist. And it's clearly evident in the reasoning they give to justify their "unbelief". They're just trying to hide from their own double standard by trying to claim they aren't accountable for what they assert (that no gods exist). So they assert it surreptitiously, as the "automatic default truth" to theism.

For many a theist does though, maybe most ( like you? ) claim, pretend they know "god" is real, in the worlds most data- free assertion ever. Your complaint seems backwards to me.

Of course God is real. That was never in question. The question is real in what ways? As an idea? As a personal experience? As a collective experience? As a physical phenomenon? "Real", how? And "real" to whom? Once you set aside the blinding prejudice, you can actually begin to deal with the real questions involved.

 

[Audie]

I said I care about what people assert to be true, and why. What I don't care about is the extent to which they "believe in" or "disbelieve in" it. What other people believe or disbelieve has nothing to do with me, or anyone else. for that matter.
But we all know that's just a dishonest ploy. They clearly believe that no gods exist. And it's clearly evident in the reasoning they give to justify their "unbelief". They're just trying to hide from their own double standard by trying to claim they aren't accountable for what they assert (that no gods exist). So they assert it surreptitiously, as the "automatic default truth" to theism.
Of course God is real. That was never in question. The question is real in what ways? As an idea? As a personal experience? As a collective experience? As a physical phenomenon? "Real", how? And "real" to whom? Once you set aside the blinding prejudice, you can actually begin to deal with the real questions involved.

Its unbecoming and unproductive for a
person, however bitter they may be, to
project their faults onto others.

So is vicious prejudice toward people whose
thoughts and character is unknown.

 

[blü 2]

When people of varying religions speak of God, they typically are speaking of their perception of God from their own religious experience unless otherwise specified.

When someone speaks to you of God, what springs to mind?

If you were raised into a religion and now identify with atheism, is it the god of that religion? Is it the God you think the speaker is speaking of?

What God do you default to?

With imaginary gods, for Yahweh the Sistine Chapel style of grey-beard grandfather, for the Greek gods their representations as statues, or as Renaissance Italian paintings, and so on. And I'm fond of Ganesha because he's cheerful, intellectual and has an elephant avatar too.

When it comes to real gods, though, that's where I have problems.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's as much truth as any human is going to get. And it's the word we use. So it's the word I use.

There is more to truth, but you are not looking for it, whatever, floats your boat.

 

[Polymath257]

Nevertheless, it exists, and it is of great importance to a great many humans. It is the essence of theism. It is the reason humans create god-concepts.

What exists? Our ignorance? Sure, i agree. Anything past that? Not that I can see.

No one knows the nature of the source. That's why it's a mystery. Why are you expecting humans to make these determinations for you so that you can have easier, more specific questions to contemplate?

Why do you think there is a 'source' at all? Why do you think there is only one? Why do you think existence *needs* a source?

And how did you determine this?
It seems to me that your bias is getting the better of you.

yes, people have biases. On all sides. You have yours in assuming there is a source, and meaning. I have mine in being open to there not being such.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's logically apparent, and does not function as true.

How do you know if you're looking for the truth rather than base your opinion on what you know and have already found?

I understand what they mean because I have my own beliefs and knowledge to make sense of their opinions. Some people who believe in god don't want to or can't understand their view because their beliefs clash.

The opinion functions as true, or it doesn't.

For you, though. That's what opinions are. Their not universal truths.

And it would still be illogical and dysfunctional.

I disagree. It would be simple to disagree only because you mentioned that everyone has their own right or wrong view.

Are all wrong views illogical?

They can't justify it in the the way THEY claim to accept.

According to you. They (atheist's) justify it they way THEY understand it. It's just theists don't want to accept what atheists say about THEIR OWN views. If you don't accept what they say (even if you don't understand it or disagree with it), you'd always look down to them and calling them fools.

A lot of us theists and atheists alike accept what we say is true because that's what makes sense to us. That is what's right for us individually. It's alright if others don't understand our views, even if they did understand it (first). It's alright to call it (our views not the people who said it) illogical, but it's not right to judge us for it just because you find what You understand of our views illogical.

I'm just calling it like I see it. If you're so concerned with who's "right", then YOU should care about this absurd double-standard.

Why would you say there is no "right or wrong" if you're going attack me for commenting on what you said?

Why attack me for commenting on something you've posted?

Here's the post #57

Unless your 'support' is nonsensical.

And you are not all atheists. You keep taking my generalizations personally. Why? I'm just responding to your posts. I'm not attacking you, personally.

Because the first part of your posts discussion was a full generalization of all atheists. You were literally (it died down a bit) attacking atheists for their illogical opinions and calling them fools (and dragons?).

You're switching the topic. You're not attacking me personally, you're attacking atheists. I'm explaining to you their views (their view on god not existing) but for some reason you're focused on their attitudes et cetera.

Don't switch the topic. We're (again) not talking about atheists-me included.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But we all know that's just a dishonest ploy. They clearly believe that no gods exist. And it's clearly evident in the reasoning they give to justify their "unbelief". They're just trying to hide from their own double standard by trying to claim they aren't accountable for what they assert (that no gods exist). So they assert it surreptitiously, as the "automatic default truth" to theism.

My point. Can you try to understand not believing god's existence without judging the people who distinctively believe god (the artifice and representations) does not exist?

You're arguing in a vacuum. No one said life isn't a mystery (or for you, god doesn't exist). We're saying it is not divine and has no religious (Spiritually, mystic, same context) attributions to it. They'd probably agree with you if you explain it in a way that's not clothed in spiritual lingo, unbiased, and non-judgmental.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When people of varying religions speak of God, they typically are speaking of their perception of God from their own religious experience unless otherwise specified.

When someone speaks to you of God, what springs to mind?

If you were raised into a religion and now identify with atheism, is it the god of that religion? Is it the God you think the speaker is speaking of?

What God do you default to?

My starting point of reference is usually the Abrahamic God, because people of the faiths believing in that God are the ones I most often end up in discussions with. I understand that there are other conceptions of God/gods, and that's fine. As someone else stated, I consider all gods as something "not of this realm," at the outset, because this is basically a pre-requisite of any believers' gods who have supernatural powers or ultimate-level abilities (like creation, controlling Earth dealings on a massive scale, knowing your thoughts, etc.) It is a pre-requisite that the "god" be from some other realm because it makes for a convenient scapegoat/excuse when having to explain to people why their god does not manifest in our reality. Unfortunately for theists, this is the main starting point for challenging their ideas also. Things like demanding realistic/palpable/cogent evidence (which they will be unable to provide), or providing actual examples of verifiable activity that can be attributed to their god. It all happens "elsewhere." Oh really? Sure it does.