Atheists: Your Perception of God

[Audie]

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?

We observed Christmas, and some Buddhist
rituals, but never with some sort of faith ot for belief involved.

What little I knew of Christian God I thought
it was kind of weird. Never really changed that opinion after years in the USA.

 

[Audie]

It's the one they can dismiss most easily. (OK, I'll stop.)

Good, coz the Christian one sure is easy to
dismiss.

 

[Audie]

So, logically, then, when you reject the conceptual images and ideals that religious theists dress the Great Mystery of Being up in, that's actually all you're doing ... rejecting the 'artifice'. Not the actual content that the artifice is being used to 'embody', and represent.

I.e., "jousting at windmills" because someone else imagines them to be "dragons". This is what a lot of "atheism" seem to essentially be about, IMO.

Religious people find atheism incomprehensible so they make up things to say.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well... My perceptions of god tend to default back to when I was a christian.
Invisible, omnipotent and omnipresent. Something out there, apart from existence, but something that can move through existence.

Now, I have gotten into other religions since then, so my ideas have allowed for other ideas of gods and what they are/do, but my mind will always default to the 30 years of christianity that I took oh so seriously when imagining god.

I guess that's something I've never thought about... I've been able to remove things like fear of hell and such from my mind completely, but there are still going to be remnants due to my past experiences. I guess I haven't thought about it since my mind just doesn't go there anymore. Oh well!

 

[Nimos]

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?

I tend to or at least try to address the God being discussed. But in general I refer to God of the bible, when i use examples since that is the one I have read about the most. But if one is talking God(s) concept in general or simply as a creator I don't really refer to anyone in particular, but merely as that of a creator.

But normally, if it is not somewhat obvious, I think its best to ask what God people believe in, because it varies a whole lot, even within the same religion, but certain things are common even within those.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, logically, then, when you reject the conceptual images and ideals that religious theists dress the Great Mystery of Being up in, that's actually all you're doing ... rejecting the 'artifice'. Not the actual content that the artifice is being used to 'embody', and represent.

I do not believe the artifice (if you like) Zues, Jehovah, and Yemaya exists.
Some Pagans, Christians, believe Zues, Jehovah, Odin, whoever, does exist; not as an artifice but an actual being or entity. I reject that claim "because" I don't believe they exist.

As for the mystery (not great, or anything like that), I do believe life is a mystery. Asking what it is, our place, etc are human question not "godly" ones.


Edit.
I don't reject that life is a mystery and that we do not know everything there is to know about life (and do not need to know). I choose not to reject it. I'm indifferent to it.

It's not "Great" in my perspective. I don't make it a god.

I don't see a problem with rejecting either the artifice and/or the content.

I don't see the need to call the mystery of life great-calling and describing it as great is itself putting an artifice to the mystery. It just is.

I.e., "jousting at windmills" because someone else imagines them to be "dragons". This is what a lot of "atheism" seem to essentially be about, IMO.

No. Atheism isn't about that any more than all theists believe gods need have artifices. Some just stick to the content and let it be.

Maybe you mean some atheists. Many atheists do reject the artifice because they are told that the artifice is the content not represents it. So, from Their point of view not yours, they do reject the content "because" they believe it does not exists (which makes them an atheist).

Rejection of content makes one an anti-theist
Not believing the content exists makes one an atheist

Some people who do not believe in the content's existence (atheist) are anti-theist (reject the content). Some people who reject the content (anti-theist) may still believe the content exists (theist). Some people who do not believe the content exist (athiest) are indifferent to it (does not care). Some people who believe the content exists (theist) can be indifferent to it-indifferent does not mean rejection.

The key here is many atheists are told by society and indoctrinated to believe that the artifice IS the content. So, you cannot judge your definition of god and accuse them of rejecting because they do not believe and relate to how you describe god in order to reject it none less claim it doesn't exist.

If you don't try to understand how they see the artifice as the content, you'd forever be "arguing with yourself" because they just don't fit your definition of god to have any opinions and rejection to it.

 

[Quintessence]

So, logically, then, when you reject the conceptual images and ideals that religious theists dress the Great Mystery of Being up in, that's actually all you're doing ... rejecting the 'artifice'. Not the actual content that the artifice is being used to 'embody', and represent.

I.e., "jousting at windmills" because someone else imagines them to be "dragons". This is what a lot of "atheism" seem to essentially be about, IMO.

In fairness, theism has precisely the same issue given theological diversity. It's why I lean against using the terms atheist and theist at all - they aren't useful descriptors without very explicitly clarifying what map of the territory (aka, god-concept) we're talking about. It can be challenging to articulate these things, though, because assumptions about gods are often so foundational we might not be aware of them. For example, in spite of @ChristineM claiming they don't default to some particular god-concept, that doesn't make any sense if "delusion and gullibility" spring to mind when someone else talks about gods. That conclusion only tracks given certain assumptions about gods and acceptance of gods, so there's some sort of "default" there, don't you think?

 

[SigurdReginson]

We observed Christmas, and some Buddhist
rituals, but never with some sort of faith ot for belief involved.

What little I knew of Christian God I thought
it was kind of weird. Never really changed that opinion after years in the USA.

Yah... It is weird. Weird and pointless.

I do feel like religion has robbed me of much of the elements of my life that I've had to work hard to reclaim. Ironically, I utilized other religions to help me reclaim some of those things in the past. Over the last few years, I've learned how to rely on myself completely- something most folks have just innately done without a second thought.

When one gets too deep into religion, it changes the way one thinks, for sure, and that change isn't always for the better.

 

[Curious George]

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?

If you were to strike up a conversation with my about flibflabbergets, I would undoubtedly need to ask what are flibflabbergets to engage in any meaningful discussion. If you were to strike up a conversation about a god, then I don't think I would need to ask what is a god. This is because I, as most atheists (save those pesky rocks), have a god concept.

My concept of what a god is--a highly intelligent, conscious, immortal entity which has definite control over some aspect of our universe-- works for most gods (and perhaps some aliens who could be rightly regarded as gods).

However, the answer to your question is a little bit more complicated. I hold my concept of a god and I believe no such entity exists. But through discourse I often find myself holding multiple definitions: a concept as I understand it, and concepts as I believe others understand it. So, in addition to holding my concept of a god i also hold what i believe are others' concepts of gods. These latter concepts are constantly in changing with speakers' representations. In general, I try to find the distinctions between these concepts. This helps me clear misconceptions I may have, find inconsistency in what others are portraying, and discern where disagreements, if any, lay.

For example: if we are discussing whether gods exist and it becomes clear to me that you are referring to either a specific tree or an abstract concept of trees as a god, then i would believe that your concept of a god was incompatible with my concept of a god. Consequently, we would need to discuss what qualifies a god and why.

 

[Jedster]

@SalixIncendium
Some background:

I am relatively new to the non-Theist view. It is something that has grown in me since the age of 50(am now 72) and have only admitted to myself and others over the last few years.
My first concept of any god was from Judaism, which basically said that god is beyond understanding, i.e unknowable. This always niggled me from childhood.

When I was 26, I became very serious bhakti and believed my guru was god-incarnate. I stayed with it for over 20 years until it became clear to me that my beliefs around this person were false.
However my years as a bhakti gave me an appreciation of life/existence that I never had before.


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 they talk of their personal experience , I can and do relate, while explaining that I don't have have a god-concept any more. I still often have blissful conversations with mainly Dharmics & Pagans who really don't mind what anyone believes.
I find with most(not all) Abrahamics, they just throw quotes at me. So I usually try back off and if they get heavy with me, I give them a metaphoric kick in the goolies.
I find that most Bahais, I know, are not shy about their personal experiences.


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?

If I am discussing with Jews, I just tell them my own understanding of Torah, which is that the whole book is a metaphor for existence.

 

[Audie]

In fairness, theism has precisely the same issue given theological diversity. It's why I lean against using the terms atheist and theist at all - they aren't useful descriptors without very explicitly clarifying what map of the territory (aka, god-concept) we're talking about. It can be challenging to articulate these things, though, because assumptions about gods are often so foundational we might not be aware of them. For example, in spite of @ChristineM claiming they don't default to some particular god-concept, that doesn't make any sense if "delusion and gullibility" spring to mind when someone else talks about gods. That conclusion only tracks given certain assumptions about gods and acceptance of gods, so there's some sort of "default" there, don't you think?

When I studied Christianity, i thought it strange anyone would think to make concepts, ideals that we take as just being the right way in life,
take those and make them into a religion
to teach in church on sundays!

If even then.

Lofty ideals don't seem to have much to do with Christianity as practiced.

The weird "god' of the Christians is a lot of things, a big percent of its interaction being taken up with capricious acts of savagery
and genocide.

Worrying about that, or eternal torment for breaking
a rule seems a distraction from the lofty stuff.

Dunno why any "god" image is needed, but if a prop helps, great.

 

[PureX]

Good, coz the Christian one sure is easy to
dismiss.

They're all easy for someone else to dismiss. The point is that they work for the people who are using them.

 

[PureX]

Religious people find atheism incomprehensible so they make up things to say.

No "incomprehensible", just illogical, and disingenuous.

 

[Heyo]

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?

As I am only an atheist as a consequence of being an Agnostic, I don't have a god concept. I even scold atheists for assuming or accepting god concepts too easily. It allows the theists the illusion that they know what they are talking about - they usually don't.

 

[Yerda]

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

Depends on the speaker. Some people give me the impression that they believe in the existence of a God that is really just a very clever and quite bonkers person with all manner of alledged abilities. Other people seem to believe in some things I find very difficult to wrap my head around - the mystic types, the pantheists and some others.

If you insisted on taking the word God as denoting the exact same thing in @Quintessence post and say, @Deeje or @nPeace you'd probably be setting yourself up for some confusion and misunderstanding.

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?

Um, maybe.

What God do you default to?

Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns...

 

[PureX]

I do not believe the artifice (if you like) Zues, Jehovah, and Yemaya exists.

They "exist" as artifice. They "exist" as reality in the minds of the "believers". They just doesn't comport with the reality you've developed in your own mind.

I'm just saying this to be clear.

Some Pagans, Christians, believe Zues, Jehovah, Odin, whoever, does exist; not as an artifice but an actual being or entity. I reject that claim "because" I don't believe they exist.

So what. We humans are all carrying around a "reality" in our heads that don't match up with anyone else's, or in many instances with the actual facts, even. The point is not "who's right and who's wrong". The point is to share these realities with each other, and investigate them, to see if they'll better work for ourselves than the one we currently hold.

As for the mystery (not great, or anything like that), I do believe life is a mystery. Asking what it is, our place, etc are human question not "godly" ones.

Of course they are. But from our limited, human perspective, the answers are of a greater nature and significance than anything we know. So to us, they are "Divine".

Rejection of content makes one an anti-theist
Not believing the content exists makes one an atheist

How, logically, does one "reject that the content exists" (The Great Mystery of Being) without solving the mystery? Indifference is not rejection. It's just indifference.

The key here is many atheists are told by society and indoctrinated to believe that the artifice IS the content.

I am here to clear this confusion up for them. (You're welcome!)

So, you cannot judge your definition of god and accuse them of rejecting because they do not believe and relate to how you describe god in order to reject it none less claim it doesn't exist.

Of course I can, and I do. And I have explained how, and why.

If you don't try to understand how they see the artifice as the content, you'd forever be "arguing with yourself" because they just don't fit your definition of god to have any opinions and rejection to it.

But they windmills are still just windmills. And I am not a fool. So I am able to see this, and say so to those who keep insisting that they are dragons (theists OR atheists).

 

[PureX]

In fairness, theism has precisely the same issue given theological diversity. It's why I lean against using the terms atheist and theist at all - they aren't useful descriptors without very explicitly clarifying what map of the territory (aka, god-concept) we're talking about. It can be challenging to articulate these things, though, because assumptions about gods are often so foundational we might not be aware of them. For example, in spite of @ChristineM claiming they don't default to some particular god-concept, that doesn't make any sense if "delusion and gullibility" spring to mind when someone else talks about gods. That conclusion only tracks given certain assumptions about gods and acceptance of gods, so there's some sort of "default" there, don't you think?

Yes. The truth is that most of the people who are "discussing" the subject don't really know what they're talking about. Which is why they don't understand the difference between the cultural/religious theistic artifice, and the actual philosophical content/problem that the artifice is being used to embody, and represent. And as a result, their "discussions" just continue to go round and round and round in pointless circles. Pointless, except for the inevitable ego-stroking involved.

 

[firedragon]

For me, the word god is so subjective it is pretty much worthless outside of "higher power than currently known highest power".

You know what? I think you made a pretty profound statement. I wonder if you are even aware how far that statement goes. Forget faith in God, at least in the study religions, it still goes very very far.

Nice.

 

[firedragon]

Religious people find atheism incomprehensible so they make up things to say.

What is your comprehension of Atheism?

 

[Audie]

They're all easy for someone else to dismiss. The point is that they work for the people who are using them.

I guess. I dismiss American football,
Its of no interest or value to me.

Whats the point you are trying to make
re atheists tho?
None I guess, you were presenting it as humour?