Atheists: Your Perception of God

[PureX]

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.

Good thing none of this is happening, then.

 

[PureX]

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

For we humans, there are only facts, and presumptions. Truth is an ideal, like perfection, and infinity.

 

[Audie]

Good thing none of this is happening, then.

I' d guess there's only one person here who
can't see where its happening.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For we humans, there are only facts, and presumptions. Truth is an ideal, like perfection, and infinity.

The question is "Do you want it or are you satisfied with what you have?"
I do not have the full truth but I want it. The problem is that the data necessary for it will be available in a future time (not in my life-time). Progress takes time. I will leave it for a future generation, but I would not accept untruth as truth.

 

[PureX]

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

Well of course you can't. You're human, too. None of us can, that's the point.

Why do you think there is a 'source' at all?

Everything that exists as we know it points to a single source. Scientists even call it a "singularity". But we have no idea what that is, or how it 'existed', or what it means to and for existence as we experience it.

Why do you think existence *needs* a source?

Everything that exists, so far as we know, eminates from that "singularity".

 

[Pudding]

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?

When someone speaks to me about a God which is claimed to be pro-slavery, then the concept of a God who is pro-slavery springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about a God who is pro-racism, then the concept of a God who is pro-racism springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about a God who is pro-misogyny, then the concept of a God who is pro-misogyny springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about the God of Jehovah's Witnesses, then the concept of a God who is anti blood donation springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about the Jewish God, then the concept of a God who is anti mixed-fabrics springs to mind.
...etc.

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

If someone speaks to me about my ex-religion's god, then yes; if someone speaks to me about other religion's god, then no.

Is it the God you think the speaker is speaking of?

Yes.

What God do you default to?

When someone speaks to me about a God, what concept of God would springs to my mind depends on which religion's God they're talking about.

 

[osgart]

God is the personification of fairness, and justice. God is Omni everything. God creates beings other than God's self. God is eternal ground of everything that exists.

God is easily dismissed as being fair and just. Existence isn't fair or just.

There is no verifiable account of any Omni power.

God as creator is debatable.

There must be an eternal foundation to existence is more than likely true to me.

God is whatever people need God to be to solve existential crisis.

God is an overstuffed word that doesn't apply to reality.

 

[SalixIncendium]

When someone speaks to me about a God which is claimed to be pro-slavery, then the concept of a God who is pro-slavery springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about a God who is pro-racism, then the concept of a God who is pro-racism springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about a God who is pro-misogyny, then the concept of a God who is pro-misogyny springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about the God of Jehovah's Witnesses, then the concept of a God who is anti blood donation springs to mind.
When someone speaks to me about the Jewish God, then the concept of a God who is anti mixed-fabrics springs to mind.
...etc.
If someone speaks to me about my ex-religion's god, then yes; if someone speaks to me about other religion's god, then no.

So you've pretty much limited your knowledge to western religious paradigm then?

What God do i default to you ask?
Not sure what do you mean by "default to", that's too vague.

No worries. I believe you've answered the question already.

 

[Pudding]

So you've pretty much limited your knowledge to western religious paradigm then?

No idea why do you think so.

When someone speaks to me about a non-western religion's God, then the concept of a non-western religion's God springs to mind.

No worries. I believe you've answered the question already.

What God do i default to?

When someone speaks to me about a God, what concept of God would springs to my mind depends on which religion's God they're talking about.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No idea why do you think so.

When someone speaks to me about a non-western religion's God, then the concept of a non-western religion's God springs to mind.

I suppose I came to my conclusions because the attributes you listed in your initial response are not attributes of any eastern gods I'm aware of.

What God do i default to?

When someone speaks to me about a God, what concept of God would springs to my mind depends on which religion's God they're talking about.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[PureX]

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?

I'm judging the justifications being offered by people who assert that gods don't exist, for their assertions. And the dishonest way they try to avoid responsibility for them. Only you can decide it that judgment applies to you or not.

 

[Pudding]

I suppose I came to my conclusions because the attributes you listed in your initial response are not attributes of any eastern gods I'm aware of.

There's a "...etc." there.

Which include those other non-western gods there.

Thank you for clarifying.

Your welcome.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm judging the justifications being offered by people who assert that gods don't exist, for their assertions. And the dishonest way they try to avoid responsibility for them. Only you can decide it that judgment applies to you or not.

Are your judgements of their justifications reflected by their dishonesty or are they not justified in and of themselves regardless who says it-atheists or not?

I know some arguments may have ill justifications but they are logical even if I find the support for their argument weak. For example, I find it a weak support to use the bible to justify one's belief when ideally one's belief (in the godly realm) should come from the believer not dependent on external means of confirmation. External things help shape the internal but not define them.

While I disagree with the justification theists use to back up why god exists (using scripture), and I dislike many trying to get me to believe what they do, I still "understand" how they derive to their decision and why they believe what they do. I just disagree with it and find there are better ways to go about their goal than to evangelize people. To me, that type of "motivation" is selfish.

But I do believe all atheists believe in your concept of god (mystery of life). I just find you're not giving them the benefit of the doubt because they don't agree with the artifices applied to them by theists and are indifferent to the "grand" scheme of things that you tend to promote as divine.

No one is the victim here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you've pretty much limited your knowledge to western religious paradigm then?

Isn't that limitation kinda baked in when you say you're talking about God?

I mean, there aren't exactly many monotheistic deities referred to by the proper noun "God" in non-Abrahamic religious traditions, are there? Offhand, I can only think of one tradition that does this: Sikhism.

When someone uses the term "God" to describe what they believe in, I generally take it as given that they aren't polytheistic, Buddhist, or Hindu, etc., because those believers typically use different terms.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Isn't that limitation kinda baked in when you say you're talking about God?

I mean, there aren't exactly many monotheistic deities referred to by the proper noun "God" in non-Abrahamic religious traditions, are there? Offhand, I can only think of one tradition that does this: Sikhism.

When someone uses the term "God" to describe what they believe in, I generally take it as given that they aren't polytheistic, Buddhist, or Hindu, etc., because those believers typically use different terms.

God (capitalized as a proper noun) is used in Hinduism as well as other polytheistic religions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God (capitalized as a proper noun) is used in Hinduism as well as other polytheistic religions.

I'm more used to Hindus using the term "Brahman" rather than "God," and I've never heard a polytheist use the capitalized "God" to describe any gods in their pantheon.

 

[PureX]

Are your judgements of their justifications reflected by their dishonesty or are they not justified in and of themselves regardless who says it-atheists or not?

Both, often. But in either case I will take the time to explain why I think so.

I know some arguments may have ill justifications but they are logical even if I find the support for their argument weak. For example, I find it a weak support to use the bible to justify one's belief when ideally one's belief (in the godly realm) should come from the believer not dependent on external means of confirmation. External things help shape the internal but not define them.

I don't think the source matters. I think it's the logic of it that matters. If the Bible says don't put your hand in the hot grease, or you think of it yourself, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it's a logical, positively effective, assertion.

While I disagree with the justification theists use to back up why god exists (using scripture), and I dislike many trying to get me to believe what they do, I still "understand" how they derive to their decision and why they believe what they do. I just disagree with it and find there are better ways to go about their goal than to evangelize people. To me, that type of "motivation" is selfish.

Yes, but what matters is that you can clearly explain, and justify, your disagreement. Then it's up to the others what they do with that information. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm just here to share and to debate my thinking, and my reasons for it. After that, everyone will do with that whatever they want. And the same is true for me. I also want to hear other people's thinking, and their reasoning, so that I can choose from it what I find to be useful for me. I'm not here to attack anyone, even if I am "attacking" their reasoning. There's no need for anyone to get all defensive.

But I do believe all atheists believe in your concept of god (mystery of life). I just find you're not giving them the benefit of the doubt because they don't agree with the artifices applied to them by theists and are indifferent to the "grand" scheme of things that you tend to promote as divine.

I can't get them to let go of their loathing for the 'artifice', to discuss the actual 'meat' of the issue. They are so intent on attacking the artifice for being artifice that they can't seem to consider discussing anything else.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm more used to Hindus using the term "Brahman" rather than "God," and I've never heard a polytheist use the capitalized "God" to describe any gods in their pantheon.

Fair enough.

I’m glad I was able to help you expand your understanding.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Both, often. But in either case I will take the time to explain why I think so.

I don't think the source matters. I think it's the logic of it that matters. If the Bible says don't put your hand in the hot grease, or you think of it yourself, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it's a logical, positively effective, assertion.

Wouldn't logic depend on the person rather than a universal law?

Unless it's mathematics, I'm not sure of anything spiritual, mystic, so have you that has a concrete criteria of logic that one can accept or reject.

Yes, but what matters is that you can clearly explain, and justify, your disagreement. Then it's up to the others what they do with that information. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm just here to share and to debate my thinking, and my reasons for it. After that, everyone will do with that whatever they want. And the same is true for me. I also want to hear other people's thinking, and their reasoning, so that I can choose from it what I find to be useful for me. I'm not here to attack anyone, even if I am "attacking" their reasoning. There's no need for anyone to get all defensive.

But it doesn't sound like you're accepting their justification. Unless they ask you what will you accept, you can either try to understand it or not. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense in general.

What do you learn from your debates?

I can't get them to let go of their loathing for the 'artifice', to discuss the actual 'meat' of the issue. They are so intent on attacking the artifice for being artifice that they can't seem to consider discussing anything else.

Why would you get them to stop loathing the artifice?

Many theists Do make the artifice the source as if they were one. So, who can blame atheists for seeing the artifice and not the meat. It's not something They choose but something many of them have been forced to interpret god because of their personal experiences with theists.

I know it's frustrating, but that's just how it is. I know not all atheists have that background, but I assume majority, at least on RF do. The thing is, your view is one of thousands of other views of god. So, maybe talk to them as if you're giving your opinion not correcting them on a personal "fact"?

 

[Curious George]

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?

As we engage the world we assimilate and accommodate information. Our experiences inform our concepts. That you could identify a vampire as a vampire and not-a-vampire as not a vampire is enough to establish that you have a vampire concept. Sure the various vampires that you can identify are very distinctive, yet you can lump them all into a category of vampires. Your ability to do this comes from the fact that you have a vampire concept. What I meant by my statement was that we most certainly do have "versions" (concepts) of things that do not exist.