Re: What use does an atheist have for deities?

[crossfire]

You are very close so I can agree with that more or less!

crucifying the poisons like Moses with the copper snake:

In Buddhism, the poisons are called kleshas.

 

[PureX]

I can't pray to the unknown.

Why not?

 

[syo]

There are a lot of similarities between your god and mine.

I am NOT a christian.

 

[syo]

Why not?

I am NOT a christian that's why.

 

[osgart]

Even Lord Xargoltus, the god I just made up on the spot?

Yes, even old Lord Xargoltus has values we all must live by.

 

[osgart]

From another thread, where I unfortunately can not post:


Deities (in this case, the Hindu Devas) are powerful symbols of certain ideals or doctrines.

It is not only possible for an atheist to make constructive use of them (at least if the misconception that we actually believe in their literal existence as deities proper can be avoided), it is in my opinion the proper way of using deity-concepts, even for theists.

I truly wonder if early theists ever expected people to go to the lengths that some modern theists go.

Well God is excess of ego. People might try taking on God attributes in ruling over other people's lives. So perhaps it is a personality trait and a rather unlikeable one at that. You must have heard the expression, "playing god with people's lives". So as an atheist i might find it useful to consider it as a trait in certain people.

Even faithful believers are acting out in Godlike ways in enforcing their God upon us all. So thus it is useful to examine the God we are forced to live by. Does God measure up to everyone's values and ideals, or does God surpass them, or fall beneath. And who decides anyways, and for whom or what.

 

[Vinayaka]

From another thread, where I unfortunately can not post:


Deities (in this case, the Hindu Devas) are powerful symbols of certain ideals or doctrines.

Yes some Hindus see it as all symbolic. But the very word 'deity' usually means something else. Rather than worship Varuna, why not just honour water? Once prana pratishta occurs, the statue/symbol becomes deity.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From another thread, where I unfortunately can not post:


Deities (in this case, the Hindu Devas) are powerful symbols of certain ideals or doctrines.

It is not only possible for an atheist to make constructive use of them (at least if the misconception that we actually believe in their literal existence as deities proper can be avoided), it is in my opinion the proper way of using deity-concepts, even for theists.

I truly wonder if early theists ever expected people to go to the lengths that some modern theists go.

You have a point here. I, personally, have a couple of Nataraja statues in my home, but not because I'm a worshiper of Shiva, but because the symbolism speaks (quite loudly) to me.

But you are taking what I wrote in the other thread out of context. The post I quoted in that thread that you place in the OP of this one speaks specifically of worship of deities and speaking to them. Do you feel such practices can be reconciled with atheism?

 

[Erebus]

From another thread, where I unfortunately can not post:


Deities (in this case, the Hindu Devas) are powerful symbols of certain ideals or doctrines.

It is not only possible for an atheist to make constructive use of them (at least if the misconception that we actually believe in their literal existence as deities proper can be avoided), it is in my opinion the proper way of using deity-concepts, even for theists.

Spot on!

Stephen Fry (a man who's never been shy about his atheism) often talks about the inspiration he found from the stories of the classical Greek deities. He doesn't need to believe in them as literal beings for them to have enriched his life or invite contemplation on morality and the human condition.

Stories are an important part of human experience and gods regularly play their role as the embodiment of particular concepts. They can be helpful or harmful, virtuous or cruel but they're nonetheless a vital part of many narrative structures. Even putting mythology aside, anybody who enjoys fantasy literature is bound to have come across numerous god concepts.

I truly wonder if early theists ever expected people to go to the lengths that some modern theists go.

It's very difficult to say for certain. The ancient Greeks famously had atheist philosophers but I don't know how universal this was. However, even if we assume that early theists held that belief was vital, that doesn't mean we should still consider that to be the case.

 

[BilliardsBall]

From another thread, where I unfortunately can not post:


Deities (in this case, the Hindu Devas) are powerful symbols of certain ideals or doctrines.

It is not only possible for an atheist to make constructive use of them (at least if the misconception that we actually believe in their literal existence as deities proper can be avoided), it is in my opinion the proper way of using deity-concepts, even for theists.

I truly wonder if early theists ever expected people to go to the lengths that some modern theists go.

I'd like to respond to your post, but I'm having trouble following it. Can you rephrase it for us?

 

[LuisDantas]

I wish some Muslims would pitch in. I think that their view of the dangers of idolatry would clash with the situations that we discuss in this thred in a rather enlightening way.

Question:

So basically you're saying an atheist can use deities in the way Christian's use a cross?

It's a symbol that represents Christ and his values, which we try to live by as best we can. But the symbol itself has no power or is to be worshipped in and of itself.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Yes, it does make sense, and I am indeed saying that.

I think that even many nominal theists do exactly the same without necessarily realizing it.

Absolutely not. The Gods are real, they are not symbols.

Whether they are real or not is perhaps immaterial when they are used in the language of atheists.

I wonder if the noose would have became such a symbol had Jesus been hanged rather than crucified. Still, odd to me that an instrument of torture and death came to symbolize what it has. I don't know if Jesus would be very comfortable around such imagery upon his return.

The Christian Cross is indeed a symbol. To the best of my understanding, it is often a symbol of acceptance, precisely because it reminds Christians of unfair loss and suffering.

You sound like a christian.

I figure that such was his intent, in order to lampshade how dangerous it is to assume that theistic claims make sense even to those who profess them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no need for gods/deities/demigods/supernstsupe/worship etc. With the definition of atheism including lack of belief in gods i would assume atheists in general don't.

Most of us have to communicate with non-atheists fairly often. There is an use for language that they can understand.

That said, i have a strong belief in humanity, nature, my family. If people wish to call them deities they are welcome.

I figure that many people actually do, and historically did.

I want to point out that the Gods are not imaginary.

That is a difficult matter to even attempt to establish. How do you tell an imaginary God apart from a non-imaginary one? Or do you mean that it is impossible to even propose an imaginary deity? Did @Father Heathen create a non-imaginary deity in this thread? If not, why?

Also, what distinguishes the imaginary from the real generally? Is cryptocurrency imaginary or real? Both? Neither?

Is the cross a Christian ashtamangala?
Ashtamangala - Wikipedia

And it serves as a token-reminder of the ideas and concepts? (It brings the ideas you associate with it to mind when you see it?) More like a long term reminder, as contrasted to a short term reminder such as when you tie a string around your finger to remind you to do something?

Pretty good catch, @crossfire

To the best of my understanding such is indeed the case.

Your belief gives him life.

So true. And so typical, if we are very honest.

Maybe, someday, they'd be interested to ponder the meaning behind why Hope was not allowed to escape Pandora's Box, no?

I am not seeing the connection, but sure, that is an interesting thing to consider. I for one have little notion of what is meant by that tale, although sometimes I feel that I just might know.

You mean using deities as archetypes or idealistic examples/moral teachers. In which case you don't have to turn to deities at all. Just by using the concept of personification you can achieve the same result. For example justice has long been personified as a female with eyes blindfolded holding scales. In the Bible wisdom is personified as a female. So, no need for false deities.

Deities are not necessary, but they are useful as figures of speech and conceptualization.

They can be powerful as well, for those inclined to find significant amounts of inspiration in them.

I only have one God so have no need for idolatrous gods.

By an atheist's perspective idolatrous gods are the only variety available.

I think symbols can also be useful short hand in communicating to others.

Precisely.

Can be sure, but you have to be careful. A lot of intentional misinformation and black propaganda out there. Those that use the symbols to communicate can be tricky lil hobbitsis.

Interestingly, the exact same is true of sincere believers.

 

[LuisDantas]

You have a point here. I, personally, have a couple of Nataraja statues in my home, but not because I'm a worshiper of Shiva, but because the symbolism speaks (quite loudly) to me.

I feel that way towards Shakti, personally.

But you are taking what I wrote in the other thread out of context. The post I quoted in that thread that you place in the OP of this one speaks specifically of worship of deities and speaking to them. Do you feel such practices can be reconciled with atheism?

As it turns out, I have convinced myself (foolishly perhaps) that I have a fairly good grasp of @Aupmanyav 's relationship towards and use of the concepts of the Devas, and I think that it is represented fairly well in the opening post of this thread.

And since I have already commited misjudgements this month, I figure that odds are that there will be no more. Perhaps. Maybe.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd like to respond to your post, but I'm having trouble following it. Can you rephrase it for us?

Mainly, I feel that belief in the literal existence of specific Gods is unnecessary and perhaps undesirable even for very sincere adherents of the respective creeds.

More context may be had from my previous posts right above.

 

[Firemorphic]

I wish some Muslims would pitch in. I think that their view of the dangers of idolatry would clash with the situations that we discuss in this thred in a rather enlightening way.

How so? you're speaking of deities as psychological symbols in Atheism, which is hardly relevant at all to our beliefs.

 

[syo]

That is a difficult matter to even attempt to establish. How do you tell an imaginary God apart from a non-imaginary one? Or do you mean that it is impossible to even propose an imaginary deity? Did @Father Heathen create a non-imaginary deity in this thread? If not, why?

Also, what distinguishes the imaginary from the real generally? Is cryptocurrency imaginary or real? Both? Neither?

A ''God'' is a term we use about entities that exist, and these entities hold universal truths. Loki is the God mischief. Mischief is a universal truth. But Loki cannot work alone. He is part of a pantheon. The pantheon all together is complete universal truths.
@Father Heathen did not create a god. he didn't mention any attributes that are true. His god was just imagination. And I think he was inspired by the christian God. Now, is the Christian God real? Unfortunately, yes.

 

[sealchan]

From another thread, where I unfortunately can not post:


Deities (in this case, the Hindu Devas) are powerful symbols of certain ideals or doctrines.

It is not only possible for an atheist to make constructive use of them (at least if the misconception that we actually believe in their literal existence as deities proper can be avoided), it is in my opinion the proper way of using deity-concepts, even for theists.

I truly wonder if early theists ever expected people to go to the lengths that some modern theists go.

Carl Jung would have agreed with this in the sense that gods as symbols often "activate" our psyches in particular ways that more straight-forward ideas do not. That is why such fantasies persist and are important in human experience. They are useful fantasies for maintaining the health of the human psyche...a sort of exercise course that trains up our minds to respond adaptively to our experience of the world.

Which symbols are important to an individual depends on the particular configuration of the individual psyche. The variety of religious symbolism reflects the complexity of the human psyche. Each of us, in our dreams, produces conscious imaginings which provide both familiar and creatively new examples of such symbolic ideas as gods.

 

[sealchan]

Absolutely not. The Gods are real, they are not symbols.

Symbols are real. They are powerful (numinous) for those whose psyches are needful of them.

Is the goal of religion to prove the physical reality of faith beliefs? Or is the goal of religion to effect desired change in our psyches so that we experience peace and satisfaction in our lives?

 

[syo]

Symbols are real. They are powerful (numinous) for those whose psyches are needful of them.

Is the goal of religion to prove the physical reality of faith beliefs? Or is the goal of religion to effect desired change in our psyches so that we experience peace and satisfaction in our lives?

The goal of religion is happiness. True happiness and not placeboes of happiness.

 

[sealchan]

In nontheistic paradigms, archetypical unconscious content that comes into consciousness can be mistaken as "other." (See the Tibetan Book of the Dead for more.)

Care to explain more? This is a post that I suspect I would agree with but is a bit too densely packed and concise for me to be sure.