That's your choice. But it's my group that's targeted by it, and I see little reason to doubt it's often meant.
-
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!
If all world people turn atheists.
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
That's your choice. But it's my group that's targeted by it, and I see little reason to doubt it's often meant.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I identify as non-theist these days, so I'm not exactly sitting here with my eyes closed to the conversation, either. However, I view it differently - if this is the best the other side can come up with, then let them have their fun, in front of the debate spectators and everything else.
I guess our difference is that you see it as potential slander, but I see it as too silly to be slanderous, and more reflecting the person saying it than the atheists. Surely there must come a point where a belief goes from something you must defend against and worry about, to something that refutes itself and warrants little response.
Nope. You know me enough to know I'm generally chill, I think/hope. And others can decide what their push buttons are. But I've heard this particular claim a LOT over the course of my life. I'm yet to have anyone actually articulate what the hell my God is. I see no reason to let the claim stand without challenge.
It doesn't reflect atheists at all. And it's frankly a strangely insulting thing to say about Christian belief.
Sure. I get to decide where that line is for me. You get to decide it for you. I'm generally very good at turning the other cheek, despite being a drug-worshipping heathen. I guess it's those early Christian lessons that instilled some basic decentness despite my complete lack of moral fibre.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's just a place-holder term. A label we use to refer to the great mystery that gives us all those gifts (listed above). I honestly don't see why you and some others find that so objectionable that you have to "ban the word" from your thinking. Same can be said of the images and characterizations people invent ro represent that great mystery in their minds. They are all just place-holders. A way for them to easily conceptualize a mystery that they cannot otherwise 'own' (and perhaps pretend to control) with their minds.
We humans want to be in control of our lives so badly that we will very often adopt the pretense of knowing things that we don't actually know just to create that illusion of control for ourselves. I think this is what is fueling a LOT of religious god-imagery, and dogma, and the obsession with "magical authority". I also think it is what is fueling the 'scientism cult' and it's weird almost religious obsession with the righteousness of atheism.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I generally choose to avoid it in conversation because to almost every believer it denotes a powerful person who consciously created me, has pressing concerns about my sex life, loves a list dos and donts, and is weighing up whether I get an afterlife (and how hot it will be). This isn't about the mystery of existence.
Audie
Veteran Member
Why is it disastrous to do one's best toNaw. I mean, yes, granted if we're sticking to word definitions...!
What I meant was that people think of themselves as having a rational basis for decisions, etc. In that sense, they all have rationales.
But I don't believe that makes people rational in any objective sense. Their rationales are often irrational, poorly understood, or self-delusion. I absolutely include myself in that, and would point to something like the ridiculously misguided attempt by Richard Dawkins of popularising 'Brights' as a term as a very simple example of this. Wtf?!?
I'm one of those pitiful creatures who studied psychology as a major. I have no delusions about the degree of subjectivity involved in that 'science' but cognitive dissonance is an important and explanatory concept in human thinking to my mind. Social psychology is also very interesting. Both point to humans ability and willingness to rationalise what is before them to fit their biases.
Agree. Strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly agree. This is EXACTLY my thought.
Agreed. *peers suspiciously*
Why are we agreeing?
I'm not sure what 'truth' is in this context, so hard for me to answer. I've worked with a lot of scientists though, albeit not on science (more on areas like grant management, forecasting, etc).
One thing I see pretty regularly are scientists focused on building knowledge, and grant bodies or funders focusing on control...
I think both happen at the same time, and it says more about capitalism than human nature.
I'm okay with all that. I just don't see God in it. *shrugs*
be objective?
I suppose thats so for religion, love at first sight and
"philosophy" but objectivity is a bedrock essential
for resesrch.
That what rules you and/or what you serve with your actions and words. For example many has fear as their god, because it rules them.
PureX
Veteran Member
I don't think any one idea rules any one person. We humans are a complicated collection of ideals, desires, needs, and perceptions that all mix together to drive our thoughts and actions. Often without our even being consciously aware of it.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I was reading through many of the quite interesting responses to this question when I began to look at my own experience for advice. Suddenly, I was struck by an odd commonality in my various 12-step programs and groups. There are religious folks in my groups, but the membership is composed of atheists mainly. This feature just stands out after a while.
For example, when I joined these groups, I joined as a "strong atheist" and was quite dismissive of a great deal of religious thought. A funny thing happened on the way to recovery. I began to realize how extreme my "strong atheist" position was, and that it was akin to that of the hard core religious fundamentalist. In a flash, I realized that the only thing that really made sense to me was being agnostic as, realistically, I am in not position to determine if god(s) do or do not exist. Further, I'm not likely to ever be in a position where I can make such a determination.
Back to 12-Step (AA style meetings). During a meeting attendees are strongly encouraged to share how they are feeling today, right now, physically, emotionally and spiritually. The spiritual aspect often throws new atheists for a loop because they are not used to thinking of "spirituality", period. (Not saying this applies in all cases, but it is a common feature in my groups based on my own direct experience.)
What we identify in the recovery process is best described as a "spiritual disconnect" from a person's inner reality, or the foundational aspects of a person's psyche. In religious terms, it's like these folks, me included, had lost their "soul" or their connection to emotional perception, if that makes sense to the reader. In 12-step programs, we rekindle that sense of awareness of a "higher power", for one to be accountable to. For example, because I am unsure if a god exists, my sense of "higher power" is the other men in the room, my community, to whom I remain accountable to.
To circle back to the OP, I'm a bit with @PureX on this, but not too much, based on my current work, the prospect of a world filled with atheists only is likely a world filled with great, and very deep, unrecognized psychological issues due to what I now see as this spiritual disconnect.
For example, when I joined these groups, I joined as a "strong atheist" and was quite dismissive of a great deal of religious thought. A funny thing happened on the way to recovery. I began to realize how extreme my "strong atheist" position was, and that it was akin to that of the hard core religious fundamentalist. In a flash, I realized that the only thing that really made sense to me was being agnostic as, realistically, I am in not position to determine if god(s) do or do not exist. Further, I'm not likely to ever be in a position where I can make such a determination.
Back to 12-Step (AA style meetings). During a meeting attendees are strongly encouraged to share how they are feeling today, right now, physically, emotionally and spiritually. The spiritual aspect often throws new atheists for a loop because they are not used to thinking of "spirituality", period. (Not saying this applies in all cases, but it is a common feature in my groups based on my own direct experience.)
What we identify in the recovery process is best described as a "spiritual disconnect" from a person's inner reality, or the foundational aspects of a person's psyche. In religious terms, it's like these folks, me included, had lost their "soul" or their connection to emotional perception, if that makes sense to the reader. In 12-step programs, we rekindle that sense of awareness of a "higher power", for one to be accountable to. For example, because I am unsure if a god exists, my sense of "higher power" is the other men in the room, my community, to whom I remain accountable to.
To circle back to the OP, I'm a bit with @PureX on this, but not too much, based on my current work, the prospect of a world filled with atheists only is likely a world filled with great, and very deep, unrecognized psychological issues due to what I now see as this spiritual disconnect.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
One of my favourite "skewers" I use on guys in recovery when they are bridling at some point is to remind them that their thinking is what got them in our room(s) to begin with, so they might want to rethink their convictions. I do love that "deer in headlight" look that occurs.
PureX
Veteran Member
Most people think the face of ego must be arrogant and dismissive. But I think what you just described is the real face of ego. All that feigned arrogance is just bluster meant to hide the desperate fear of being found to be "wrong".
That has nothing to do with atheism, though. And fear is just another negative call out. So it's now sex, drugs, money or fear. Right?
Piffle.
Never yet heard a Christian trot this stuff out and suggest love, or peace or family are an atheists gods. Even then I'd disagree, but at least it would show a degree of Christian charity.
It's not disastrous to do ones best to be objective. It's potentially disastrous to not understand that is an ideal, rather than a reality.
In short, trying to be objective is good. Assuming you ARE objective is problematic.
A quibble...it's a label you give to the great mystery above. Which I have no issues with, but it is commonly used with more specificity by others.
Two immediate thoughts. Maybe three.
1) I was raised with a religion (CofE) and was taught what God was based on that. I've had direct exposure to various Christian religions (by exposure I mean direct contact, attendance at services, friendships with believers, etc...not academic exposure) and to Islam. If any of those people asked me if I believed in God, they are not talking about it in anything like your terms.
When discussing things that matter to me most, particularly legal and societal impacts of God, belief in God and religion...again, it's not anything like your terms that are involved.
So whilst I have no issue with your use of the term, it's going to cause me more communication issues than it solves.
Atheist is a loaded enough term I've strongly considered ditching it, but it's a closer fit for me than 'agnostic' if I'm reducing my beliefs on God to a single word.
2) Much as you see me as banning 'God' from my thought (I don't, but I also understand what you mean) I'd suggest you've banned agnosticism or agnostic atheism. Non-belief is not strong atheism, and I'm absolutely not a strong atheist.
It's okay to reject both, and I feel comfortable doing so despite not believing in an interventionist God.
PureX
Veteran Member
Much the same as with the ideal of "God", I think.
To use the God ideal as a conceptual/ethical guidepost can work well for a lot of us a lot of the time. But if we forget that it is an ideal, not our reality, and we start thinking we and our God are one and the same, or that we are our God's 'right hand' in the real world, we become dangerous, and quite insane.
PureX
Veteran Member
"Others" don't define my understanding of these things. I am not religions because I have never been a 'follower' when it comes to these kinds of complex philosophical considerations. We could replace the term "God" with whatever term we choose, but the mystery would remain. And I like to use the term that most "others" use because I believe we are all contemplating the same fundamental mystery.
I do, however, acknowledge that a great many of my fellow humans prefer to conceptualize this mystery is ways that allow them to imagine they have some knowledge (therefor control) of it. While I am not seeking knowledge nor control of it. But if I made up my own label for the mystery, because of this difference, would that just be more confusing? I think it would be. Not to mention being somewhat egotistical.
True. Because I have no "belief" nor "unbelief" regarding this great mystery we tend to call "God". While many others are seeking and even demanding that we all "believe in" their religious representations of it. And again, I see this as a control issue. Very common to we humans. Not a theological issue. Religions are all about control. But then so are politics, commerce, culture, and nearly every other activity we humans engage in.
When I see atheists complaining about religion's constant intent to control the thoughts and behaviors of others, I don't see that as a theological issue, or a theological problem. I see it as a human issue, and a human problem. One that requires a collective social response that addresses it in all areas of human engagement and interaction. Not just religious.
That some people keep focusing on religion as the 'control culprit' in our society is, to me, just a silly bias. And a hopelessly ineffective one, besides. Because even if we could magically eliminate religion from the human experience, we would still be drowning in our obsession with control.
Not so. I am openly and obviously agnostic. It's why I keep harping on the difference between belief and faith, and why that difference is so important. "Believers" are NOT agnostic, regardless of their often claiming to be. The whole pont of believing it to eliminate those troublesome doubts. Whereas faith accepts those doubts and makes choices and takes action in full awareness of them. In fact BECAUSE of them.
Not the disciplined critical thinker. We're born able to believe anything - the childlike faith many espouse as a virtue. Worse, we lack the defenses against false belief or to determine when an idea is correct or not. And worse than that is that we don't know such methods exist, what they can do, and why they should be embraced to the exclusion of all other "ways of knowing." But once one achieves that, belief is no longer optional. The conclusions of sound arguments recognized as such are routinely added to one's fund of knowledge, and everything else is rejected perforce.
What you are saying is that it is reasonable to invent an idea and believe it if it comforts you. That's a different goal than discerning truth, which is what reason is most useful for. And truth can liberate one from needing a god belief to be comfortable, which I find more reasonable in the practical sense in which you mean the word.
Impossible. Nobody knows if god exist much less their nature. Of course, it you're comfortable making up things and believing them, then go for it, but your thoughts wouldn't have much value to those already comfortable without faith or religion.
Agreed, just like every other unfalsifiable claim. You also cannot rule out vampires and leprechauns.
A rationale doesn't imply sound thinking. In fact, its part and parcel of rationalization (motivated thinking).
Believing without it is foolish.
You are religious as I use the word. Here you are defending theism in yourself and others.
Nobody's fighting with religion. Atheists have defeated it in their own lives already, and most don't care what the rest believe until they stat organizing and politicizing their religions to impose it on others. Really. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn’t violently insane, sacrificing animals, and he keeps the noise down. If you think that's facetious, it's not.
Faith is a path to belief - the one that sidesteps evidence and reason. All belief is either justified or not, no belief being both or neither.
The word "God" carries baggage that makes its use problematic if one doesn't mean the judgmental man in the sky. Einstein used it to mean the laws of nature, which created tremendous confusion and ambiguity. It's a word I don't need to describe any aspect of reality, so I don't. Look at what it's done for your message. You want to claim that you're not religious and that the word doesn't refer to a person, but who's buying that? If that were literally correct, you used the wrong word, just like Einstein. But I don't think that's the case. Here you are objecting to others avoiding the word. This is how many theists try to get their gods in through the back door. They deny that they are discussing a god, just like the ID people. If they can just get others to use the word god to describe their naturalistic worldview, they feel that they've gotten a foot in the door.
That's one purpose of religion. It's how it's used in Afghanistan. In America, it's been about piercing the church-state wall and controlling school curricula and criminalizing what Christians think offends Jesus - abortion, and if possible, same-sex marriage and contraception.
But its main function is as a self-licking ice cream cone that exists to perpetuate itself and support and empower people who generate nothing of value. They just build more churches, hire more clergy, and try to draw as many wallets to their collection plates as possible by putting more Bibles in hotel drawers and running ads for Jesus during the Super Bowl.
Think about what a coup forming a priestly class was for the priests. Even today, being clergy is a great gig. No manual labor or hot sun. No education or training necessary if you want to open your own church. No government oversight. No expensive equipment needed. People bring you money every week to do nothing except tell them how to live. Instant respect and social status, although not so much as before.
Last edited:
Maybe one can have many gods. I would like to know, what motivated you to answer to this debate?
Maybe that is because Bible tells God is love and atheist says God doesn't exist...
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God, and everyone who loves has been born of God, and knows God. The one who does not love has not known God, because God is love.
1 John 4:7-8
The Bible tells us a lot about God, including that he is a vengeful God.
I have no issue with God himself, but those claiming to worship him I judge by their fruits and would hope they'd offer me the same courtesy.