Atheists: Your Perception of God

[ppp]

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.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that we have concepts of things that do not exist. But generally when someone says that I have a concept of a god, what they mean is that I have a specific go-to god concept. That is no longer true. I have been in and through too many religions for that to be common any more.

My go-to for god or vampire is largely dependent on a) the most relevant recent media I have consumed, and b) the context and contextual clues of the given conversation/situation.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think that anyone would disagree that we have concepts of things that do not exist. But generally when someone says that I have a concept of a god, what they mean is that I have a specific go-to god concept. That is no longer true. I have been in and through too many religions for that to be common any more.

My go-to for god or vampire is largely dependent on a) the most relevant recent media I have consumed, and b) the context and contextual clues of the given conversation/situation.

I simply believe that your mind is better at abstraction than you realize.

 

[ppp]

I simply believe that your mind is better at abstraction than you realize.

I have already pointed out that I have learned nearly a dozen concepts of vampires, and over a hundred concepts of gods. I've even invented some of both for fiction I have written. That is abstraction. What is the "better at abstraction" that you are talking about?

 

[Curious George]

I have already pointed out that I have learned nearly a dozen concepts of vampires, and over a hundred concepts of gods. I've even invented some of both for fiction I have written. That is abstraction. What is the "better at abstraction" that you are talking about?

The ability to categorize. For example, if I follow your argument correctly, you would have me believe you have dozens of concepts of various vampires, but no umbrella concept of a vampire. This is akin to suggesting you have no concept of red, just millions of concepts of the various shades of red.

I simply do not believe you are giving your mind the credit that it deserves. I bet, without even knowing it, your mind has a concept of red, vampires and god- regardless of whether you acknowledge it. Furthermore, i would suggest each and every atheist poster within this thread also has a concept of a god.

Perhaps I have misunderstood or mischaracterized your argument. If that is the case, then perhaps you have misunderstood whatever post of mine to which you first replied. I am not certain whether there is a misunderstanding or you are really trying to assert you do not have a god concept.

 

[ppp]

The ability to categorize. For example, if I follow your argument correctly, you would have me believe you have dozens of concepts of various vampires, but no umbrella concept of a vampire. This is akin to suggesting you have no concept of red, just millions of concepts of the various shades of red.

The thing is, George. The "category" of god is not akin to reds. It's not even akin to the category of colors. It's a meta category that holds a lot of unrelated stuff. Here is an abridged list of the attributes that a "god" can possess. I'm sorry, but the term "god" is not a category. It's a junk drawer...filled mostly by colonialists on behalf of others.

Object/non-object
Material/non-material
intelligent/nonintelligent
mortal/non-mortal.
agent/non-agent
spectrum of powerful/helpless
spectrum of alieness
spectrum of aware of humanity/not
spectrum of creature/non-creature
specturm from real to metaphorical
spectrum of type of relationship to the humans
Et cetera
Et cetera
Et cetera

 

[Curious George]

The thing is, George. The "category" of god is not akin to reds. It's not even akin to the category of colors. It's a meta category that holds a lot of unrelated stuff. Here is an abridged list of the attributes that a "god" can possess. I'm sorry, but the term "god" is not a category. It's a junk drawer...filled mostly by colonialists on behalf of others.

Object/non-object
Material/non-material
intelligent/nonintelligent
mortal/non-mortal.
agent/non-agent
spectrum of powerful/helpless
spectrum of alieness
spectrum of aware of humanity/not
spectrum of creature/non-creature
specturm from real to metaphorical
spectrum of type of relationship to the humans
Et cetera
Et cetera
Et cetera

If you are pointing out that people have contradictory concepts of gods, i would agree. Hell, some people did/do believe the sun is a god. But that doesn't fit within my concept of a god. If it did i would be forced to agree that at least one god exists. Yet i don't agree. Why?

Well, because i have the ability to say nope i do not recognize the sun as a god. This statement, can only be used if and only if i have a god concept. This means some of the junk that others toss in that drawer, i discard.

So you are either an atheist, like me with a god concept, or you are not an atheist because you believe that some gods do exist.

 

[ppp]

If you are pointing out that people have contradictory concepts of gods, i would agree. Hell, some people did/do believe the sun is a god. But that doesn't fit within my concept of a god. If it did i would be forced to agree that at least one god exists. Yet i don't agree. Why?

Well, because i have the ability to say nope i do not recognize the sun as a god. This statement, can only be used if and only if i have a god concept. This means some of the junk that others toss in that drawer, i discard.

So you are either an atheist, like me with a god concept, or you are not an atheist because you believe that some gods do exist.

That is just trying to force a particular orthodoxy in order to maintain a label. You are saying is that if Culture X worships something that physically exists as a god, that you personally refuse to recognize that cultures conception of a god because it would corrupt your sense of semantic purity.

Pfui.

 

[Audie]

The ability to categorize. For example, if I follow your argument correctly, you would have me believe you have dozens of concepts of various vampires, but no umbrella concept of a vampire. This is akin to suggesting you have no concept of red, just millions of concepts of the various shades of red.

I simply do not believe you are giving your mind the credit that it deserves. I bet, without even knowing it, your mind has a concept of red, vampires and god- regardless of whether you acknowledge it. Furthermore, i would suggest each and every atheist poster within this thread also has a concept of a god.

Perhaps I have misunderstood or mischaracterized your argument. If that is the case, then perhaps you have misunderstood whatever post of mine to which you first replied. I am not certain whether there is a misunderstanding or you are really trying to assert you do not have a god concept.

A concept ? The Christian God showed up late
in my pantheon.
I have concepts of dozens of supernatural beings from dragons and the kitchen god thro'
Leprechauns and on up to various great spirits.

There's a different first image that comes to mind depending on the context.

Around here it is the 6 day poof n flood guy
in a sort of blurry image spread among different Xian versions I've heard.

 

[Curious George]

That is just trying to force a particular orthodoxy in order to maintain a label. You are saying is that if Culture X worships something that physically exists as a god, that you personally refuse to recognize that cultures conception of a god because it would corrupt your sense of semantic purity.

Pfui.

No, it is recognizing that the human mind categorizes and labels. We constantly gather and reject information which we assimilate and accommodate in our schemes.

 

[Curious George]

A concept ? The Christian God showed up late
in my pantheon.
I have concepts of dozens of supernatural beings from dragons and the kitchen god thro'
Leprechauns and on up to various great spirits.

There's a different first image that comes to mind depending on the context.

Around here it is the 6 day poof n flood guy
in a sort of blurry image spread among different Xian versions I've heard.

I would suggest that any specific god is distinct from your concept of a god: one is a particular example of a set, the other is the set to which that particular example belongs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Off topic. Have you considered another way to view god rather than being the unknown but a life force (lack of better words) or "air" that brings to life and movement every living being and formation of the physical universe? Not an unknown force (not a "thing" unto itself) but its defined by the act of formation and cause/effect?

We can get in touch with our lives by getting in touch with the energy behind our actions-when we act-rather than contemplating on a passive mystery.

I say that makes more sense because we are involved in and sustained by the air we breathe. In prayer, meditation, to simply doing everyday hobbies, we can get in touch with "our" (each person's individual) life force. Divine, great, profound, etc are just adjectives depending on the person's interpretation and communication but it's not divine in and of itself.

A mystery/unknown can't do anything-it doesn't give life and doesn't sustain it. So, contemplating it sounds completely philosophical and theological. But when you're experiencing life through your actions and getting in touch with the "life" brought from it (formatted and all that), it's very concrete. We are more focused on what we do rather than what we believe.

I also believe that finding the truth would be easier if you see it and build it through your actions and results thereof. Trying to solve the mystery of life or describing the mystery of your being is a philosophical endeavor but in my opinion, you can drive yourself crazy trying to search for the abstract than experience it in action.

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.
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.
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.

I liken it to a balloon. Each of us are balloons. The air we breathe (life) sustains us while we float. As the balloon deflates, the air leaves. When it's completely deflated, the air still exists (it's not a "thing" to itself), but our body dies. One can say who we are is only defined by the air that sustains us. But as a great mystery? It can be a mystery to understand it, but I don't believe it's a mystery in itself-nonetheless divine.

 

[Audie]

I would suggest that any specific god is distinct from your concept of a god: one is a particular example of a set, the other is the set to which that particular example belongs.

Its all make believe anyway so this is distinction without a diffrrence.

 

[ppp]

No, it is recognizing that the human mind categorizes and labels. We constantly gather and reject information which we assimilate and accommodate in our schemes.

While you start with, "No." Neither of the following sentences contradicts anything that I have said.

 

[Willamena]

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?

The other bit.

There is everything, the knowable world per se, and then there's the other bit.

I know it's not descriptive of god, but then nothing is.

 

[Audie]

While you start with, "No." Neither of the following sentences contradicts anything that I have said.

Being news of the obvious

 

[Curious George]

While you start with, "No." Neither of the following sentences contradicts anything that I have said.

The contradiction is that it is not in the pursuit of semantic purity, but rather tied with how we view the world. If culture x sees blue as green i wouldn't alter my view about defines blue. I would just footnote that culture x defines blue differently. This isn't tied to semantic purity, this is tied to how i view and interpret the world. "refus[ing] to recognize that cultures conception of a god because it would corrupt [my] sense of semantic purity" implies that the categorization is subsequent to wordplay. I would say the wordplay is a product of the categorization, and the categorization is an innate human process.

 

[Curious George]

distinction without a diffrrence.

Irony?

 

[Audie]

QUOTE="Curious George, post: 6922344, member: 38961"]Irony?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the category

 

[PureX]

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

You mean that for some, it could be logical to put their hand in hot grease and get burned? Wouldn't you want them to explain how they see this as logical? And when their "logic" is completely irrational, and dysfunctional, what then?

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, mysteries tend to inspire paradox, confusion, and uncertainty.

What do you learn from your debates?

I learn how to think and speak more clearly about my own position. And I've learned that a lot of people just don't think things through, and waste enormous amounts of time and energy defending their own ignorance and confusion because of ego. I've learned that most theists need their gods, and many of them are much better humans because they have them.

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"?

I can accept ignorance. We're all ignorant about a great many things. But it's hard to accept people willfully choosing to remain ignorant when they're confronted with better information.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You mean that for some, it could be logical to put their hand in hot grease and get burned? Wouldn't you want them to explain how they see this as logical? And when their "logic" is completely irrational, and dysfunctional, what then?

More of some people don't put their hands over the fire because of personal experiences. Some may don't because of trauma. Some were taught not to. Some it just clicks that hot means danger. It varies how people come to logic in what they say and do. The point is that everyone's logic is different. So, to expect universal criteria and the same perspective for things like spirituality and god is highly unrealistic.

A parent would explain it but a stranger? Depends on what it is. I'd be hard-pressed if someone told me how I define god is wrong. But if I didn't know the stove was hot, yes, it would be nice for someone to warn me.

Yes, mysteries tend to inspire paradox, confusion, and uncertainty.

Which makes it kind of odd for anyone to have "a truth" even the truth and claim to have it or judge someone else because of it.

I learn how to think and speak more clearly about my own position. And I've learned that a lot of people just don't think things through, and waste enormous amounts of time and energy defending their own ignorance and confusion because of ego. I've learned that most theists need their gods, and many of them are much better humans because they have them.

Everyone has their motivation, tools, and values that help them be a better person regardless if they believe in god or not.

I'm not sure how seeing other people waste their time and not think things through benefits you. It says more about how you see people differently than it does understanding where people come from and how it benefits them with or without god.

I can accept ignorance. We're all ignorant about a great many things. But it's hard to accept people willfully choosing to remain ignorant when they're confronted with better information.

This is a selfish point of view. By whose criteria are they ignorant of, though?

If you care about others (do you?) wouldn't you be more concerned about their criteria of understanding for themselves and not contrast conflicting values and lack of knowledge of things that you believe are true?

It sounds like people are ignorant of your version of god et cetera. Which is fine. Not everyone agrees with everyone else in regards to spirituality. But as a fact-statement?

I find that a bit selfish way of looking at things.