What is God

[LuisDantas]

God is, quite literally, anything or anyone that anyone decides to call a god.

It does not make any sense to take as a premise that there is only one and that there will be some meaningful core of perception about its role and attributes. Very often such is not the case even within any given monotheistic doctrine.

While I acknowledge that there are many people who find it important to connect with the "true God", I can't help but find that backwards, naive and dangerous.

Religion is supposed to be more careful and more meaningful than a glorified form of lotto involving god-beliefs. And it should not define itself in relation to god-beliefs in the first place. It is for the adherent to define and elaborate on what he finds meaningful and take the full responsibility for the consequences. That can't be helped or avoided in good faith.

 

[Darkforbid]

God is, quite literally, anything or anyone that anyone decides to call a god.

It does not make any sense to take as a premise that there is only one and that there will be some meaningful core of perception about its role and attributes. Very often such is not the case even within any given monotheistic doctrine.

While I acknowledge that there are many people who find it important to connect with the "true God", I can't help but find that backwards, naive and dangerous.

Religion is supposed to be more careful and more meaningful than a glorified form of lotto involving god-beliefs. And it should not define itself in relation to god-beliefs in the first place. It is for the adherent to define and elaborate on what he finds meaningful and take the full responsibility for the consequences. That can't be helped or avoided in good faith.

God is, quite literally, anything or anyone that anyone decides to call a god.

Rubbish,

 

[Quintessence]

Why should we believe any different for older religions?

Study religion more and it'll become apparent to you. Indigenous religions don't have founders, for one, and those are the earliest religious traditions of our people. They, and their predecessors, also don't really fit into this overly-simplistic model you have of religion being about "explaining things with gods." For one, there are many non-theistic religious traditions and religions serve many, many functions beyond "explaining things." Furthermore, when religions do "explain" things, folks really, really need to keep in mind the distinction between mythos and logos. Far too many conflate the two ways of knowing, and religion deals far more with mythos than it does with logos. And in any case, that the map is a construct of humans hardly means the territory is.

God is, quite literally, anything or anyone that anyone decides to call a god.

Rubbish,

But he's right. Something is a deity because some human declares it to be so. That's how language and word usage works in general, really. The standards various cultures use when applying the label "god" to things differ too, and represent relevant theological differences. It's why it behooves us to aim to be precise in language and be patient when comunicating these ideas with folks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddhist also have a word for telepathy I think you'll find most atheists think that's rubbish too.
Buddhist beliefs regarding a creator deity are conflicted. It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator. Buddhism posits that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are misconstrued to be a creator.

Buddha did not believe in any of these things. Telepathy arose because of contact with Hindu Tantrics and the disputed/unclear belief in Gods belongs to Manayana.

Carl Sagan

Was Carl Sagan a prophet? Why should I believe what Carl Sagan believed? He had his views, I have mine.

 

[Altfish]

Study religion more and it'll become apparent to you. Indigenous religions don't have founders, for one, and those are the earliest religious traditions of our people. They, and their predecessors, also don't really fit into this overly-simplistic model you have of religion being about "explaining things with gods." For one, there are many non-theistic religious traditions and religions serve many, many functions beyond "explaining things." Furthermore, when religions do "explain" things, folks really, really need to keep in mind the distinction between mythos and logos. Far too many conflate the two ways of knowing, and religion deals far more with mythos than it does with logos. And in any case, that the map is a construct of humans hardly means the territory is.

But he's right. Something is a deity because some human declares it to be so. That's how language and word usage works in general, really. The standards various cultures use when applying the label "god" to things differ too, and represent relevant theological differences. It's why it behooves us to aim to be precise in language and be patient when comunicating these ideas with folks.

Founders, maybe not; but somehow someone abuses the tradition and becomes a 'Priest' or Leader as a means of controlling the people.
As I said, religion was originally a way of answering the great unknowns.

 

[Fool]

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

the trinity


God is Spirit
God is Love
God is Light

1John 1:5 NIV This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but somehow someone abuses the tradition and becomes a 'Priest' or Leader as a means of controlling the people.

Not all priests were leaders. Most were just 'religious workers' who fulfilled the needs of their people. Not all were/are rich either. That kind of generalization is not correct.

1John 1:5 NIV This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

John was perhaps suffering from tinnitus. Such people hear and speak tongues (Paul).

 

[Darkforbid]

Study religion more and it'll become apparent to you. Indigenous religions don't have founders, for one, and those are the earliest religious traditions of our people. They, and their predecessors, also don't really fit into this overly-simplistic model you have of religion being about "explaining things with gods." For one, there are many non-theistic religious traditions and religions serve many, many functions beyond "explaining things." Furthermore, when religions do "explain" things, folks really, really need to keep in mind the distinction between mythos and logos. Far too many conflate the two ways of knowing, and religion deals far more with mythos than it does with logos. And in any case, that the map is a construct of humans hardly means the territory is.



But he's right. Something is a deity because some human declares it to be so. That's how language and word usage works in general, really. The standards various cultures use when applying the label "god" to things differ too, and represent relevant theological differences. It's why it behooves us to aim to be precise in language and be patient when comunicating these ideas with folks.

OK if I decide to say one of my dogs balls is God. Premote a religion around it I'll end up in a looney bin

Calling anything a deity does not make it one, just like calling a bike, a car does not make it faster

The concept of God has been around since the beginning of civilization; God can be anything pure hogwash and I suppect atheist hogwash

No hang on atheist can be anything all religions are atheist

 

[Quintessence]

As I said, religion was originally a way of answering the great unknowns.

Not really. It's much more complicated than that. Arguably, the more "original" role religion served (and continues to serve) is for social cohesion and to facilitate social contracts. The specifics of how this is accomplished varies, and may not put much emphasis at all on "great unknowns."

 

[Aupmanyav]

The concept of God has been around since the beginning of civilization; God can be anything pure hogwash and I suspect atheist hogwash.

Yes, people have such thoughts because that is what they have grown up with. Some people take advantage of that for money, sex or fame. Good Night. Will answer more questions tomorrow.

 

[Quintessence]

The concept of God has been around since the beginning of civilization; God can be anything pure hogwash and I suppect atheist hogwash

Actually, I'm a theist. And in looking at various god-concepts throughout the world and throughout history, I reached the conclusion that literally anything can be deified as well. Any person can look at something and decide it is worthy of worship, and it is not my place to tell them otherwise. That tends to be how polytheists roll. We aren't in the business of saying someone is worshiping a "false god" because we don't worship it ourselves.

 

[Darkforbid]

Study religion more and it'll become apparent to you. Indigenous religions don't have founders, for one, and those are the earliest religious traditions of our people. They, and their predecessors, also don't really fit into this overly-simplistic model you have of religion being about "explaining things with gods." For one, there are many non-theistic religious traditions and religions serve many, many functions beyond "explaining things." Furthermore, when religions do "explain" things, folks really, really need to keep in mind the distinction between mythos and logos. Far too many conflate the two ways of knowing, and religion deals far more with mythos than it does with logos. And in any case, that the map is a construct of humans hardly means the territory is.



But he's right. Something is a deity because some human declares it to be so. That's how language and word usage works in general, really. The standards various cultures use when applying the label "god" to things differ too, and represent relevant theological differences. It's why it behooves us to aim to be precise in language and be patient when comunicating these ideas with folks.

Oh that's from: Psychology Today

In which the author describes religion as a evolutionary adaptation

 

[Darkforbid]

Actually, I'm a theist. And in looking at various god-concepts throughout the world and throughout history, I reached the conclusion that literally anything can be deified as well. Any person can look at something and decide it is worthy of worship, and it is not my place to tell them otherwise. That tends to be how polytheists roll. We aren't in the business of saying someone is worshiping a "false god" because we don't worship it ourselves.

Well there a big difference between accepting different theological ideas. And not calling the doctors if someone calling Mums old shoe God

 

[LuisDantas]

God is, quite literally, anything or anyone that anyone decides to call a god.

Rubbish,

I don't doubt that you perceive it as rubbish.

But that is still your perception, as opposed to some form of general truth or general reality.

Even within the Abrahamic traditions we have god-concepts that are essentially dealers that a believer is expected to bargain with, aiming to attain supernatural or even purely material favor. Competing for space with those, there are more transcendental and inspirational conceptions of what is presumably the same deity.

Deities are in fact a very personal thing, although of course there are many who hope and dearly attempt to use them as a common ground for communities.

I find that naive, a significant misunderstanding of what deities are and what role they are supposed to sustain, and a misuse of honest effort, but maybe it is just me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well there a big difference between accepting different theological ideas. And not calling the doctors if someone calling Mums old shoe God

To be sure, there is a wild variety of theological stances out there, and it can only be a good thing to acknowledge that some are hard to even attempt to compare with others.

I for one see no upside in neglecting the practical need to clearly establish what is meant by "God" whenever that word is used. Or, if the convenience arises, to explicitly point out that such a definition is not desired.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By nature, the heart of man is evil and desperately wicked, says the prophet Jeremiah

By nature, man is peaceful and loving but it gets corrupted by irrational religious beliefs, might some other random prophet say.

Now what?

From it flow all the evil there is in the world

Which is kind of pointing out the obvious, since "evil" is a label we use to describe specific types of human behaviour.

When a lion eats a gazelle, it isn't being evil.
When a lion attacks, kills and eats a human, it isn't being evil.

"Evil" is specifically a certain type of human behaviour.
"Good" is exactly the same.

These are label of moral value that we humans attach to human behaviour.

Obviously, all evil is done by humans.
All good is done by humans as well.

The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life is where all sins and evil originate and can be attributed.

And good as well.

When I looked at my girlfriend, I looked with lust. I then engaged in sex, which is lust of the flesh.
Then a beautiful boy was born and I am as proud as the next guy.

How evil.

 

[Quintessence]

Well there a big difference between accepting different theological ideas. And not calling the doctors if someone calling Mums old shoe God

Why would you call a doctor on such a person? Why would you assume someone needs a doctor because their culture is different from yours? Maybe it would be a good idea to ask them some questions to learn more about their culture before making the assumption that they need medical attention?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you're claiming: Omniscience you are claiming to be an all-knowing authority on the subject of God’s inspiration

No. He's just looking at human history / the history of religion and bringing the data to a conclusion that makes sense to him.

, to refute God’s claim that Scripture was inspired by Him

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. No "refutation" required, since there is nothing there to refute... there's only a bare claim.

You refute things by either coming up with contradictory evidence, or by showing how the proposed evidence is invalid.

Yet, the god-scripture claim is unfalsifiable, so no evidence could ever contradict OR support it by definition. You can't come up with evidence to refute the irrefutable and you can't show non-existing evidence to be invalid.

So to top it off, it's a meaningless claim which can be safely ignored, just like all other (potentially infinite) unfalsifiable claims.

Omnipresence you are claiming that you were present, both spiritually and physically, to observe that God had no part in aiding any of the biblical authors

This is shifting the burden of proof.

Good luck with that

No luck required, when the "challenge" is infested with logical fallacies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Different cultures and time periods have vastly different theological ideas but they're all on one subject God

I love it, when theists of a specific religion like to pile all theists unto one heap as if that gives them the advantage.

In reality, it's just a rather juvenile way to pretend that you are in a majority instead of being part of a minority belief.

In reality, the various gods claimed over the course of human history, are at times so ginormously different from one another that it makes no sense at all to pretend as if it's all from the same "source".

Again it's highly illogical to think they wouldn't be different

I highly disagree.

If an all-powerfull, all-knowing, all-inteligent and benevolent god existed, it would be trivial to figure out a way to "reveal his message" in such a way that we puny humans understood it correctly.

That's what I would expect, if such a god exists.

However, if NO gods actually existed and religion is just an invention of humans out of psychological needs and faults, then various theologies being hard-coupled with geographic location / culture, would be EXACTLY what I would expect.

Consider a reality where Columbus arrives in Latin America as the first European ever and finds those people reading a bible and believing in Jesus. Now THAT would have been something special requiring some special explanation. But that's not what he encountered at all.

What he in fact encountered, are religious believes as different from what he knew from religions as their customs, culture and language was different from he knew.

Again, this is exactly what I would expect to see if religion is a cultural phenomenon that reflects human psychological needs instead of actual reality.

Plus just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean there's none

So what's your evidence?

Have you seen an alien. Does that mean other life in the universe is nonexistent?

False analogy.
There very good, very valid reasons to consider it quite likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Even if only that we have precedents of life existing on this little planet. That in itself already makes life elsewhere more likely then anything supernatural, as we have ZERO precedents of confirmed, documented supernatural things. Zero.

With life, we know that it is at least POSSIBLE to exist, since we exist.
We don't even know that concerning the supernatural.
In fact, I have yet to hear a proper definition of "supernatural" that allows for recognizing it when it is ever encountered.

 

[Altfish]

Not all priests were leaders. Most were just 'religious workers' who fulfilled the needs of their people. Not all were/are rich either. That kind of generalization is not correct.
.

But the fact that you were a 'Priest' gave you a power over others, you could start to control their lives. (If you so desired)