Is there anything inconsistent with the premise of no gods?

[Marsh]

saw that documentary years ago
we humans are simply different
the brain is wired differently

have you seen the guy that can recite the value of pi......?
for 6hrs without stopping....
and a table full of witnesses with computer generated printouts checking his recital

perhaps all of life has a soul
what?.....the next life has no bugs in it?
I just hope mosquitos and ticks fail to cross over

You didn't answer the question. You explained that the human body was "a learning device" and produced a "unique spirit." I indicated that this chimp could out perform humans in this memory task and asked if you thought the chimp too had a "unique spirit?" I also asked if you meant by this a soul?

 

[Thief]

You didn't answer the question. You explained that the human body was "a learning device" and produced a "unique spirit." I indicated that this chimp could out perform humans in this memory task and asked if you thought the chimp too had a "unique spirit?" I also asked if you meant by this a soul?

memory recall can be done by a computer....and to a greater extent than anything living

is there confusion between the living and the dead?

and the Carpenter said....
Let the dead bury the dead

 

[fantome profane]

and the Carpenter said....
Let the dead bury the dead

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

 

[Thief]

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

see my thread called....Denial

 

[fantome profane]

see my thread called....Denial

"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"

 

[Kartari]

Hi Penguin,

Thinking to a recent thread about God's inaction in the face of human suffering, I got to thinking: it isn't just that God doesn't seem to act in response to suffering; it's that God doesn't seem to act at all.

I've seen theists try to reconcile this with different justifications for why God might exist but be "hands-off", but all this ignores the fact that the inaction of God (or gods) can also be reconciled with a different premise: that no gods exist.

With this in mind, a challenge for theists: can you think of any reason why to reject this premise? Is there any compelling evidence or valid logical argument that is demonstrably true and is incompatible with the premise that no gods exist?

Not that I am aware of either. The universe seems perfectly consistent with the absence of gods' existence.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Our belief doesn't include a personal deity, but a universal consciousness that drives energy to create the cosmos and making it evolve with time.
All living souls are essentially fragments of this universal consciousness... So, if all living beings are Gods, isn't it our duty to fix it all?
The impersonal Brahman lies beyond the cause and effect of all the cosmos as he's neither matter or energy or empty space and is freed from the bonds of time.
He's cannot be perceived by any of the senses, but only by enlightenment and renunciation of all bodily and material designations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so you can separate the creation from the Creator?
and therefore substance is 'self' starting?

science would disagree....
an object at rest will remain at rest until "Something" moves it

the universe is not self starting
Spirit first

Again with the argument from ignorance?

 

[Thief]

Again with the argument from ignorance?

from threads here at the forum.....that would be typical of the nonbeliever
Hear no God .....See no God......Speak not of God....

so many have pleaded ....I don't know....and therefore there is no God

 

[Acim]

Another way in addressing the OP would be to make the case that I should be calling something I believe exists "god" (or "God"). If you want to make the case that I'm somehow making a mistake by not thinking of "nature, or people, or existence itself" as gods, then please go ahead.

Cool, I will.

As God is existence itself through your (and all) consciousness, then the perception of God's (or gods') inaction (in say the face of suffering) is really a statement about the reality of own self. Likewise, as God is existence itself through your (and all consciousness), then all perception of God's/gods' action (in the face of suffering) is (also) really a statement about the reality of own Self.

Could (easily) say more, but gotta have a starting point that is bound to be questioned/scrutinized before further points are allowed for (intellectual) understanding.

That isn't the conclusion. The conclusion isn't that gods necessarily don't exist; the conclusion is that everything we can experience or infer is consistent with there being no gods. If it's consistent with other premises, then this is a separate matter.

Again, depends on how god(s) are being defined. I put forth definition that God is existence itself. Good luck inferring that everything 'we' experience is consistent with there being no existence.

 

[Acim]

in what way does the godless worldview fall short?

The godless worldview may fall short in the reality of own Self. It may then render the view that in the face of any needed/desired action of an observer (i.e. You) that lack of (anything really, but let's go with) action, is beyond me, my consciousness, my conscious effort and/or my divine will. It actually leads to an entirely irresponsible worldview that could be very, if not entirely confusing. Suggesting, "I'm not making all this (existence)" as it exists for me, even while I can literally identify all of it, name it, understand it, describe it, experience it. Moreover, then concluding that I can be threatened by any of this (or arguably all of this) to the point where I exist no more (i.e. death). The implications are that profound.

Akin to a night dream where the observer doesn't realize they are actually asleep and perceives all threats in the existing 'reality' as not of their making, not something they have any power to undo/change, but are at the mercy of the 'natural order' of things (outside of 'me').

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cool, I will.

As God is existence itself through your (and all) consciousness, then the perception of God's (or gods') inaction (in say the face of suffering) is really a statement about the reality of own self. Likewise, as God is existence itself through your (and all consciousness), then all perception of God's/gods' action (in the face of suffering) is (also) really a statement about the reality of own Self.

Could (easily) say more, but gotta have a starting point that is bound to be questioned/scrutinized before further points are allowed for (intellectual) understanding.



Again, depends on how god(s) are being defined. I put forth definition that God is existence itself. Good luck inferring that everything 'we' experience is consistent with there being no existence.

It seems like all of this is based on the premise that God is "existence itself". Why take this position? Is there some sort of identifiable mistake in not taking it?

 

[Acim]

Please don't conflate things. Viewing things as sacred does not necessarily imply viewing them as gods.

What would be an example of viewing something sacred that is not connected with gods/divinity (for anyone)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would be an example of viewing something sacred that is not connected with gods/divinity (for anyone)?

It seems like you're twisting what I said. You changed "as gods" to "connected with gods/divinity" and tacked "for anyone" on the end.

 

[Acim]

It seems like all of this is based on the premise that God is "existence itself". Why take this position? Is there some sort of identifiable mistake in not taking it?

I assert it a) because it is partial basis of my theological knowledge, b) because you threw forth a challenge and I believe it provides something close to check mate, and c) because not taking it does lead to a level of confusion I'm familiar with, have held for a period of time in this life, and that when confronted with perceived threats to my (actual) being, are met with irresponsible thoughts. Namely about who I am. Because this mistake is forgivable (Thank God), it really is only a delay in the inevitable (realization, or return to awareness) of who am I, who are we, in reality.

 

[Acim]

It seems like you're twisting what I said. You changed "as gods" to "connected with gods/divinity" and tacked "for anyone" on the end.

Fine, I'll ask it in exactly the way you stated it, please provide an example of viewing something sacred that implies not viewing them as gods.

 

[Quintessence]

Fine, I'll ask it in exactly the way you stated it, please provide an example of viewing something sacred that implies not viewing them as gods.

There are abundant examples. Religious services are often considered to be sacred time that are held in sacred space. Neither the time nor the space are necessarily regarded as gods themselves. Religious services also often make use of various implements that are consecrated, or made sacred. This does not mean that those implements are transformed into gods during the consecration ritual. Various animals and plants are considered sacred to particular deities, without necessarily being regarded as gods themselves. Offerings to god(s) are often considered sacred too, and don't have to be considered god(s) themselves.

It is worth noting, perhaps, that the word "sacred" typically means something is connected with god(s), not that something is a god... but the term is a complex one that is used in many different ways in various contexts. Regardless, this seems a somewhat tangential point. An adequate discussion about what "sacred" means and whether or not that term inherently implies god(s) could be the subject of its own thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine, I'll ask it in exactly the way you stated it, please provide an example of viewing something sacred that implies not viewing them as gods.

If we use the definitions of sacred meaning "entitled to reverence and respect" or "highly valued and important", then no connection to a deity is necessarily implied at all.

There are specifically god- and religion-based definitions of "sacred" (e.g. "set apart for the service or worship of a deity"), but this religious sense of the term isn't necessarily present when people use it.

 

[Acim]

There are abundant examples. Religious services are often considered to be sacred time that are held in sacred space. Neither the time nor the space are necessarily regarded as gods themselves.

I would wish to discuss with such a person what they mean by the time is sacred or the space is, to determine if it is not gods themselves present in this time/space. If you are such a person, let me know. With all examples you provide, I shall take a similar tact.

Religious services also often make use of various implements that are consecrated, or made sacred. This does not mean that those implements are transformed into gods during the consecration ritual. Various animals and plants are considered sacred to particular deities, without necessarily being regarded as gods themselves. Offerings to god(s) are often considered sacred too, and don't have to be considered god(s) themselves.

Again, I would wish to discuss what makes it sacred. If you feel able to make that case, let's discuss this further. I will maintain that it implies it is necessarily viewed as gods. Though feel that is really the twisting of the words, as sacred generally means connected to gods/religion. So, I was more looking for secular understanding of sacred and how is that being implemented within the ongoing debate, but given the gauntlet is being put forth, I'll say make a case for an offering (or whatever) as sacred, and I'll make the case it is 'as gods.'

It is worth noting, perhaps, that the word "sacred" typically means something is connected with god(s), not that something is a god... but the term is a complex one that is used in many different ways in various contexts. Regardless, this seems a somewhat tangential point. An adequate discussion about what "sacred" means and whether or not that term inherently implies god(s) could be the subject of its own thread.

I actually see it as directly related to this thread, but like all things depends on how it is being defined. Many people tend to equate God(s) with worship, but don't seem to be clear on what worship actually means. I find it quite plausible that people engage in worship of things that are sacred and for them that shows up as "I have some respect for this thing. Doesn't mean I treat it 'as god.' " Whereas, I would say, no it necessarily does mean that. It's related to the whole 'placing idols before God (Creator)' tangent, but is the intellectual / symbolic version of that ritual.

 

[Demonslayer]

What would be an example of viewing something sacred that is not connected with gods/divinity (for anyone)?

Katy Perry on a trampoline.