We Never Know
No Slack
I've never watched star wars but I think most everyone has heard the line "Luke I am your father"
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What Do Gods Do?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
No, I was listing properties of deities that have existed for centuries independently of the Abrahamic concept, which was just another version of a deity. You asked for atheists to give their ideas about what gods are independently of the Abrahamic paradigm, and I gave you mine. For some reason, you weren't receptive to my list. You have some ideas of your own that are exclusive of it. I wouldn't mind it if you actually said what your idea of a god is rather than telling everyone else that you think they are ignorant of what a god is if they disagree with your unstated position. However, you chose not to elaborate.
It really is as @SalixIncendium said. You described a very, very Abrahamic model of deity.
Following that link, I came across another link: Intergalactic Krewe of Chewbacchus - Wikipedia
They sound cool.
To offer some insight on some why's of this from someone who isn't Abrahamic - something I've noticed is that folks interpret non-Abrahamic theology through a distinctly Abrahamic lens. The result is they project Abrahamic assumptions onto these theologies and consequently fail to really understand them on their own terms. It's usually unintentional... Abrahamic theology and religion simply has that much of a stranglehold on how folks in the West approach understanding theology and religion. So much of a stranglehold folks can't think outside of that box even if they want to. This bias is more well-known and minded in modern cultural studies, but the general public hasn't really caught up to that. I try to remember that every single time I notice stuff like this as a non-Abrahamic and start getting frustrated over and over again at folks not understanding (or worse, straight up disregarding) non-Abrahamic theology and religion on its own terms.
Then the question still remains: What would serve as an example of a very, very non-Abrahamic model of deity?
My instructions for the exercise were quite clear. But you instead decided to list the qualities of what you perceive a deity to be, which are very Abrahamic. If you don't know any gods or their qualities beyond that paradigm, it's okay. No one, least of all I, will judge you for it.
I could answer, as can Pagans, Dharmics, and LHPers, but that would break the thread, now, wouldn't it?
We Never Know
No Slack
I would guess some Greek gods such as Zeus, Ares, Apollo, Poseidon, Athena, Hades, etc.
I'll refer you back to post #14 of this thread.
We Never Know
No Slack
After reading it, were the Greek gods born from a religion?I'll refer you back to post #14 of this thread.
No, silly. There were born from their parents.
But seriously, they were, but the religion did not survive to present day, save revival versions of it.
I could answer, as can Pagans, Dharmics, and LHPers, but that would break the thread, now, wouldn't it?
Well, okay, then I'll use the dictionary: Definition of GOD
So, we'll disregard the first definition, as that clearly refers to the Christian, Abrahamic God.
The second definition might fit: "a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"
However, this definition also implies some level of "supernatural," or "magical" abilities which would be in common with the Abrahamic perceptions - and would also be rejected by atheists for the same reasons.
The third and fourth definitions refer to human beings who are highly venerated and worshiped, yet would not really be considered "gods" in the literal sense.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I'd like to pick Krishna as he is portrayed in the Bhagavad Gita. He doesn't do anything. He just is. And his existence is fundamental to the world. That's my kinda God!
Most gods don't genuinely serve a purpose. They just get in the way. At worst, they meddle, interfere, or lead people to delusion. But not ol' Krishna. That dude just is.
Not that I think Krishna, as he is portrayed in the Gita, exists or anything. I don't. I tend to see Krishna as an abstract way of saying "reality." I prefer to use the term "reality".
"Krishna" has all sorts of associations attached to it. It also assumes some kind of personhood. (Though if you read between the lines of the Gita, maybe not.)
Regardless, as far as gods go, I don't really believe in gods, nor do I think they "do" anything. But Krishna is probably my favorite of the "do-nothing" gods. At least Krishna has the balls to come out and say that he doesn't serve any human purposes, y'know?
We Never Know
No Slack
Lol. Well I googled them and it said Hellenism but called it a culture instead of religion.No, silly. There were born from their parents.
But seriously, they were, but the religion did not survive to present day, save revival versions of it.
I've been waiting for the last 9 pages for someone to mention Krishna.
Thank you for this!
Indeed, that is a very good question. Does it even have a fair, proper answer?
Perhaps not. Even the Abrahamic deities are fairly unlike each other, despite a duty of sorts to be very similar.
In an environment like this website, I see it as intended to be a public square in which thoughts and ideas on a wide variety of topics can be shared and evaluated and tested by others. In this environment, I am not only interacting with the person with whom I’m engaged in dialogue, but passively also with people following along with the conversation.
While it is often the case that those engaged in dialogue may remain confident in their position, the whole process of getting to that stalemate shares the knowledge and experiences of those participating with both the active and passive audience. We do not all have the same experiences, educational focus, or interests. Not everyone has a strong position on every subject or may be wholly unfamiliar with a particular subject. I know that I have been exposed to new things participating on this site. So, while I and the person I am engaged with may not be moved from our initial positions by the end, someone else who may have been unaware of some of the points presented by either side may find it valuable and incorporate it into their own understanding. I see value merely in the process of the exchange.
“Consensual reality.” What an interesting turn of phrase. I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by it.
When you use the term “deities” here, are you referring to them as concepts or as actual, existent things? It is often hard to tell when folks make declarative statements like that. It can go both ways depending on the individual.
I was unaware there was a gap that needed bridging.
For me, and I would argue most people, our understanding of any word develops from our experiences in the way that the word is used by others. Would you describe your understanding of deities and what they are supposed to be as one that is broadly held by most people? If you see your view as a minority view, to what extent would you estimate?
It is also of note that you use the term ‘deity’ often instead of ‘god’ which the latter has predominantly been used in this thread. Are the terms synonymous in your usage or are they different terms, different concepts?
Funny you should draw that conclusion. I make a concerted effort to use the term ‘entity’ in place of ‘deity’, ‘god’, or ‘God’ unless I am explicitly talking about the terms themselves as opposed to what they are meant to be pointing to in order to highlight to the other person that I am not going to give a blanket acceptance to their host of preconceptions and assumptions that underpin their use of those words. I sometimes drift to common usage, but I am working to be as consistent as I can.
I suppose we will have to leave what constitutes better, more solid and more constructive forms of religiosity to another thread.
Again, if I appear to hold the definition of ‘deity’ or ‘god’ in some firm fashion, it is entirely the result of how those terms have been presented and used within my experience.
As to your synopsis, it seems that there are things you are dissatisfied with in the current overarching religious paradigm but are seeking to not throw the baby out with the bath water, that despite the problems, you see value that is worth preserving. I suppose we shall have to leave the details of that utopian vision for another time.
Did I pass the test? I was hoping to get in a heated slanging match with @SalixIncendium
Fair enough.
Things that are well agreed to exist, to be real. In contrast to the subjective and personal reality of other subject matters.
I never speak of deities as actual, existing entities.
I think there is, regarding our respective views of the usage and meaning of the concepts of gods and deities.
Heck, no! What would the point even be?
Hard to say. My views on deities may well be mine alone - and probably not all that stable along time and across circunstances even with after that restriction is imposed.
Which is just how I like them, and far as I can tell the one and only proper use of those ideas.
Equivalent to me. "Deity" sounds slightly less Abrahamic, though. But I never refer to Abrahamic deities without meaning to criticize them, which is not what I want to do in this thread.
Fair enough. It just happens that I never do that myself.
I suppose we will have to leave what constitutes better, more solid and more constructive forms of religiosity to another thread.
Is that so? I would think that this is pretty much the central purpose of this thread, albeit by gentle means.
I could say much the same about myself... but apparently meaning the opposite.
I am not sure I even believe that there is such an overarching paradigm; if pressed against the wall I would probably admit that I do not and that I do not particularly want one to exist.
And I guess I do want to throw out the bathtub water at long last, so that the baby can reach its potential.
Ok.
Last edited: