You recommend reading the King James Bible. Don't you feel that English translation white-washes the original Hebrew Tanahk? One seems to miss all the polytheistic flavor of El, and the recharacterization of Ba'al into YHWH.
-
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: Your Perception of God
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
You just joined today. You don’t know me or anyone else here well enough to know what any of us are telling you.
How about you just settle down and take some time to get to know people before posting emotionally charged rants?
Melissa Fuentes
New Member
Sure, already posted what the boss lad on me...GOD BLESS!!!!
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
We don't have our own perception of god just how others define god. Some are indoctrinated to a specific kind of perception and that's the god they base their arguments and opinions from.
^^^^^ Just pretend I said that, okay?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
When having a conversation about a god, it is the other person who believes in a god, therefore I am always discussing their version of a god. I do not have a "version" of something that I do not believe exists.
PureX
Veteran Member
No. Artifice is representational. Like a "heart" shape (not really in the shape of a physical heart) represents the idealized experience of love. "Jesus", for example, is artifice. "Jesus" is a symbolic representational character in a mythic religious story about the salvific effects of trusting in divine benevolence (love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, etc.) and living by it.
I don't care what atheists believe or don't believe, as I have posted many times, now. I care what they assert as truth, and why. I also care what theists post as truth, and why. Because I'm looking for the "truth" that produces the most logical and positive results.
It's the mystery of all mysteries, the answer to all questions, and the source of all that is or ever will be important. So I don't see how it's not grand or divine. Personally, I think y'all look a little silly trying to downplay it like it's nothing.
PureX
Veteran Member
Then what is it that you don't believe exists?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Other peoples versions of a god so far presented to me.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Hmm.
Most of your other posts were against atheists. If you didn't care, your feelings towards them would be different. I pointed out many times that you were focusing on the people rather than the argument. I think you calmed down a bit on that. Though, I know a few others caught it too.
Would it be better to not look at atheists and theists views (since they are mish mashed) and list what you "know" is true about your life, who you are, and where you come from?
So far you found out that god is the unknown and divine and all of that. How do you implement this into your life without what you believe other people's interpretation of it is?
This is biased. I understand why you don't but I don't see it wrong or silly and all that. Just as I don't believe it's silly to believe in god(s) and all that. I know that it helps a lot of people to have traditions et cetera to help them understand the unknown.
People come from different backgrounds. For example, I never was raised religious and never was in a predominate religious environment. I never liked hierarchical thinking and never did like placing people and ideas as above or over me. If something is "great" and something else is not, it bothers me. That black and white thinking-right or wrong-is not attractive so it's not something Id take up spiritually. It causes negativity (as I see on this thread and RF in general). It causes legal divisions. People are hurt because of these types of views.
The idea some atheists downplay the mystery only upsets you-the person who believes and (that's what I mean) takes offense to other person's points of view. One thing you can do is change your worldview of people who don't believe what you believe (not rejecting-just difference; not fools [dragons?] or anything of that nonsense).
Maybe if you saw it different (or accept that you can't understand it maybe), it won't block you from finding what you're looking for. Judging other people who don't have the truth you are looking for to me is counterproductive.
I've never seen any actual content. All I see is artifice.
What do *you* see as the content?
How so?
PureX
Veteran Member
I care that they post assertions that they then cannot justify. Nor will admit that they cannot justify.. All the while attacking theist for making assertions that they cannot justify.
I choose how I wish to respond to the dilemma.
PureX
Veteran Member
And what did this achieve for you, or for them?
PureX
Veteran Member
The content is the great mystery of existence: the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And therefor the source, sustenance, and purpose of ourselves, or lives, our loves, and our joy and suffering. It's the "meaning of it all". The answers to all our questions.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
But if you're looking for truth, how can you be sure what they are saying is not true just because their attitude and approach is off?
All of this is just your opinion, though. If some atheists did not attack theist, their argument would still be the same. Just because they cannot justify it "in a way you accept" doesn't mean what they say makes inherently no sense. You said there is no right or wrong-so maybe god is just a scapegoat for your problems with those atheists who attack theists.
Also, attacking and presenting an argument are two different things. If I said god does not exist, I'm not attacking you. I'm just making an argument. If I supported that argument, that does not mean it's not justified. It just means you don't accept the justification I give.
Do you understand the difference?
Maybe another response would be more productive?
That's not content. That is a question with no answer. It isn't even clear that it is a well formed question. Why would I expect there to be a single 'source' for all that is? Or that a single thing is the 'sustenance'? or that there is a 'purpose'?
There is clearly NOT a single 'answer to all of our questions'. Or a single 'meaning of it all'.
It seems to me that your 'content' is pretty thin and useless.
Color me skeptical. You've been on the forums long enough to be confronted with god-concepts that are flatly absurd to disbelieve in. For most of human history, gods were basically mythopoetic personifications of very real forces that only someone who has seriously lost touch with reality would deny the existence of. The gods include natural forces, like the sun - which is quite possibly the most widely deified natural force in human history. The gods include social forces, like war - whose touch has cut deep and bloody swaths across human history as well. The gods include abstract concepts, like chaos - often characterized as a primordial abyss out of which all else came. If all god-concepts throughout human history are taken in sum, they very literally describe all of reality.
What I usually get from "atheists" when I point all this out is "but those things aren't gods," which is rubbish. The same rubbish is uttered by "theists" who insist their understanding of the gods is the only correct one. Neither stand scrutiny and recognizing how different peoples and cultures have understood gods. I always like it when I find folks who go "yeah, I understand this is how gods are understood in this context and respect that; to me, those things aren't gods because I define gods to be this; that's why I call myself an X, Y, or Z." Salix's question attempts to get at some of that important nuance, and I applaud that.
Only a madman would deny the gods! We see them with our very own gods!Color me skeptical. You've been on the forums long enough to be confronted with god-concepts that are flatly absurd to disbelieve in. For most of human history, gods were basically mythopoetic personifications of very real forces that only someone who has seriously lost touch with reality would deny the existence of. The gods include natural forces, like the sun - which is quite possibly the most widely deified natural force in human history. The gods include social forces, like war - whose touch has cut deep and bloody swaths across human history as well. The gods include abstract concepts, like chaos - often characterized as a primordial abyss out of which all else came. If all god-concepts throughout human history are taken in sum, they very literally describe all of reality.
What I usually get from "atheists" when I point all this out is "but those things aren't gods," which is rubbish. The same rubbish is uttered by "theists" who insist their understanding of the gods is the only correct one. Neither stand scrutiny and recognizing how different peoples and cultures have understood gods. I always like it when I find folks who go "yeah, I understand this is how gods are understood in this context and respect that; to me, those things aren't gods because I define gods to be this; that's why I call myself an X, Y, or Z." Salix's question attempts to get at some of that important nuance, and I applaud that.
My default would be somewhere between the God of my former religion (Church of England, though I was young when I left) and the most common depictions of God in the world around me (some combination of Catholic and Protestant).
In terms of religion (as opposed to God), I've tried to educate myself, and think I can make a pretty fair fist of understanding various religious practices, and their intended purpose or base (at least in an academic sense).
One of the benefits in having spent quite a few years hanging around RE is that I am well aware of the many different God-beliefs, and some subtleties in those (I originally came here to get a better understanding of modern deism, for example).
But in terms of my 'default' when people talk about God? Christian-ish. It's most often what people mean if they talk about God here in Australia, and matches with my cultural experience and background.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Color me skeptical. You've been on the forums long enough to be confronted with god-concepts that are flatly absurd to disbelieve in. For most of human history, gods were basically mythopoetic personifications of very real forces that only someone who has seriously lost touch with reality would deny the existence of. The gods include natural forces, like the sun - which is quite possibly the most widely deified natural force in human history. The gods include social forces, like war - whose touch has cut deep and bloody swaths across human history as well. The gods include abstract concepts, like chaos - often characterized as a primordial abyss out of which all else came. If all god-concepts throughout human history are taken in sum, they very literally describe all of reality.
What I usually get from "atheists" when I point all this out is "but those things aren't gods," which is rubbish. The same rubbish is uttered by "theists" who insist their understanding of the gods is the only correct one. Neither stand scrutiny and recognizing how different peoples and cultures have understood gods. I always like it when I find folks who go "yeah, I understand this is how gods are understood in this context and respect that; to me, those things aren't gods because I define gods to be this; that's why I call myself an X, Y, or Z." Salix's question attempts to get at some of that important nuance, and I applaud that.
Once it's explained like this, we usually get it. Unfortunately, theists don't give some of us the benefit of the doubt we can understand things while being ignorant about the practice. Maybe some atheists don't have the insight beyond what they are accustomed to-but when it's actually explained in a manner deeper than "god is the sun" we (some of us) tend to respect that.