Re: What use does an atheist have for deities?

[ecco]

I would welcome, as a challenge, for anyone to share a dream report, either their own or one offerred publicly by others that you think has no relationship to the symbolism found in religion or myths and I will be glad to see if I cannot demonstrate otherwise.

I put no stock into anything you are trying to say about dreams, symbolism and religion. None.

Your challenge is meaningless because it is easy to "interpret" any dream in just about any way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree. The dreams of atheists are just as useless as the dreams of the religious.

And just as useful. They do reveal a lot about what we value, fear and feel.

 

[PureX]

Dreams dont work that way, they need a grounding in reality or experience

Everything we imagine is "grounded in reality", otherwise it would be incomprehensible. It's just not bound by reality. My dreams certainly aren't.

 

[PureX]

I beg to differ. I'm a big fan of fantasy science fiction. I have read and enjoyed many books from great writers like Heinlein. I have enjoyed movies like Avatar and Star Trek.

In contrast, the Bible, other than being a source of information with which to confront Christians, is quite boring. Christian movies, like Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, are nothing more than Christian propaganda.

It's sad that your bias has blinded you to any of the other possible ways of interpreting it. Most science fiction could be viewed as propaganda, as well. But most of us are able to see past that kind of narrow, constricting bias.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is the cross a Christian ashtamangala?
Ashtamangala - Wikipedia

@paarsurrey , do you want to comment on this concept?

 

[ChristineM]

Everything we imagine is "grounded in reality", otherwise it would be incomprehensible. It's just not bound by reality. My dreams certainly aren't.

It appears dreams are triggered by events, maybe physical or mental. How the dream progresses may not make much sense as reality,

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Although I don't believe in God anymore, I still happily attend my partner's very progressive, LGBT-friendly church. They apply the Bible through a predominantly moral and cultural/political lens that requires little to no supernaturalism. It's a refreshing perspective.

 

[syo]

First you say "The Gods are real, they are not symbols." but then "His god was just imagination.", so which is it?

BTW, Lord Xargoltus is the god of false gods.

You just made a thought about a lord Xargoltus and you called it god.

 

[syo]

Why not?
What does that have to do with anything? You don't have to be a Christian to pray. You don't even have to know what you're praying to: God, the universe, whatever. You could pray to the unknown just because it helps you to feel better. Lots of people do.

the unknown is the unknown. that's it. am i supposed to give the unknown attributes?

 

[Father Heathen]

You just made a thought about a lord Xargoltus and you called it god.

So what you said about all gods being real was false? Or is it "all gods are real...except for those that aren't." (which would be a pointless statement)?

 

[crossfire]

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.

When you dream, where does the content of your dream come from, other than from your unconscious mind? When you dream of another person, is that other person actually interacting with you, or is it a representation of that person created within your mind? It might seem like "other," especially if your conscious mind hasn't scripted the interaction, but is it really "other?" (Your unconscious mind may have scripted the interaction.)

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes I did read your post. You stated that "Some forms of Satanism are atheistic".

I questioned how a belief in a supernatural anti-god could be atheistic. I still question why you think a belief in a supernatural anti-god could be atheistic.

Do you think that it matters that "Satan is a symbolic rather than literal figure"?

If "satan" serves as a symbolic figure rather than a literal one, then obviously they don't believe in satan as a supernatural entity. How was it not self explanatory? Are we playing "Jeopardy" where the question follows the answer?

 

[paarsurrey]

crossfire said: ↑
Is the cross a Christian ashtamangala?
Ashtamangala - Wikipedia

@paarsurrey , do you want to comment on this concept?

Cross is a symbol of terror/cruelty adopted by the Church.
Cross should have not been used on the roof tops of the churches or worn in the neck by the peaceful Christians, of course one does not display the device (knife/dagger/sword) with which one’s loved one has been killed. It is most illogical and irrational to use this symbol for a religion. Is it necessary to continue the mistakes of the ancient people?

The scene of Christian God Father cutting throat of Jesus or putting Jesus of Bible on the Cross for imaginary salvation or atonement of the sins of the Catholics Protestants is most cruel form of terror.
I think it is for this that truthful Messenger Prophet Muhammad when he mentioned of Second Coming of Jesus, he also mentioned of rectification of this mistake of the Church continuing it without guidance from Jesus.

Muhammad mentioned that when Jesus Second Coming will take place, Jesus will break the Cross. Of course this would be done by Jesus with rational and logical reasons. Jesus in his Second Coming would expose the tricks of the cunning Paul who invented the Theological Philosophy of Jesus’ death on Cross. Later Church fixed the Cross as the symbol of the Modern Christianity so Jesus in Second Coming will point out mistake of the Church and its false creeds, never sponsored by Jesus at all.

This is my understanding of the symbol of "Cross".
No intention to insult any people.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I am hardly a Christian, @paarsurrey , but I feel confident that for many or most Christians the cross has no terror conotations, but is rather a symbol of necessary sacrifice and transcendence.

 

[Firemorphic]

How does this thread's subject matter relate to idolatry as you understand it?

Idolatry is the worship of created things and using things as intermediaries (like statues) in worship.

I do agree that anthropomorphic deities/images are powerful psychological tools, however it does posit a massive difference in the way we as Muslims view Ultimate Reality than the way Hindus view it. Hindus have built their religion around using maya against itself, treating deities/images/idols as the central form of spiritual expression; whereas we see it as distraction and misleading from worshiping Ultimate Reality.
We share more in common with the various schools of Vedanta than mainstream Hindu traditions, in that sense (even though some Vedantists practice Bhakti Yoga).

There's nothing that bad about deities/images in and of themselves (and I'm very fond of the Hindu and Greek pantheon if you didn't know already) but as a Muslim we are more likely to view deities/images as quite a silly and nonsensical form of spiritual expression, when approached seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for the answer!

Idolatry is the worship of created things and using things as intermediaries (like statues) in worship.

I do agree that anthropomorphic deities/images are powerful psychological tools, however it does posit a massive difference in the way we as Muslims view Ultimate Reality than the way Hindus view it. Hindus have built their religion around using maya against itself, treating deities/images/idols as the central form of spiritual expression; whereas we see it as distraction and misleading from worshiping Ultimate Reality.
We share more in common with the various schools of Vedanta than mainstream Hindu traditions, in that sense (even though some Vedantists practice Bhakti Yoga).

Do you see Bhakti Yoga as approaching Islamic practice, or getting further away from it?

There's nothing that bad about deities/images in and of themselves (and I'm very fond of the Hindu and Greek pantheon if you didn't know already) but as a Muslim we are more likely to view deities/images as quite a silly and nonsensical form of spiritual expression, when approached seriously.

I get the sense that you are told outright that it is wrong and perhaps dangerous.

All the same, I still suspect that ultimately Muslims would not really have much trouble dealing with iconography and the like, and in that respect I don't think you are much unlike other people, either.

For all the worry, I don't think that idolatry is very often a real problem or a real danger.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I am not sure about how the neurological trends distribute, nor on how well they correlate with the situation regarding god-beliefs or even supernaturalism proper, but it is quite possible for someone who does not believe in supernatural entities to nevertheless dream of those.

Are you going by some random survey or something? I have a whole lot of crazy dreams but none about deities or supernatural entities. I have had lucid dreams though. Those rock.

 

[Firemorphic]

Do you see Bhakti Yoga as approaching Islamic practice, or getting further away from it?

Well, it's kinda like if you've (if you where a Hindu) soaked up the most profound bits of the Upanishads and truly come to realize and recognize Brahman (or Allah), then what use is there for idols/deities/images?
I find it incredible that Hinduism via deep introspection of the Vedas, came to realize Ultimate Reality but I guess Hinduism's own interface is a kind of hyperactivity of images and colors is a central part of it's cultural identity making it a constant defining quality of Sanatan Dharma.

As I alluded in another thread to you not to long ago, Bhakti Yoga could be a useful thing for you to contemplate to realize how or why one would devote themselves to Brahman (or Allah) but the comparison is limited through Bhakt Yoga's symbol and image-based nature. Basically what I'm saying is that you as an Atheist trying to understand Monotheism should first try to understand why Hindus worship Brahman through the guise of image and symbol first - before taking away any image or symbol for contemplating the value of Monotheism, which runs contrary to image and symbol in regards to Ultimate Reality (or Brahman/Allah).
I take the view that when you pull the curtain back, Hindus are worshiping Brahman/Parabrahman and not any literal Vishnu/Shiva/Shakti/etc. Hinduism's mainstream traditions themselves have diverging opinions about that of course, respectively.

I get the sense that you are told outright that it is wrong and perhaps dangerous.

There are varying views, of course none condone it but the way we think about it theologically and philosophically varies, on account of Muslims that do and don't understand their religion deeper than others.

 

[lukethethird]

Re: What use does an atheist have for deities?
We sweep the floor with deities.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, it's kinda like if you've (if you where a Hindu) soaked up the most profound bits of the Upanishads and truly come to realize and recognize Brahman (or Allah), then what use is there for idols/deities/images?

That is a very good reason for questioning whether Allah can rightfully be perceived as the same as Brahman, I think. The former fears being confused for - well, for most anything, apparently - while the later is beyond such concerns.

But you did not answer my question.

I find it incredible that Hinduism via deep introspection of the Vedas, came to realize Ultimate Reality but I guess Hinduism's own interface is a kind of hyperactivity of images and colors is a central part of it's cultural identity making it a constant defining quality of Sanatan Dharma.

As I alluded in another thread to you not to long ago, Bhakti Yoga could be a useful thing for you to contemplate to realize how or why one would devote themselves to Brahman (or Allah) but the comparison is limited through Bhakt Yoga's symbol and image-based nature.

Bhakti is a difficult thing for me to understand. It is reasonably similar to the stereotypical Abrahamic practice, which is fairly common among Brazilian Christians. It is odd, in that it fit few people, but there is a cultural expectation that somehow all people "should" fit it.

One of the main strengths of Hinduism is that it does not restrict itself to Bhakti.

Basically what I'm saying is that you as an Atheist trying to understand Monotheism should first try to understand why Hindus worship Brahman through the guise of image and symbol first - before taking away any image or symbol for contemplating the value of Monotheism, which runs contrary to image and symbol in regards to Ultimate Reality (or Brahman/Allah).

I sort of understand the appeal of Nirguna Brahma and its contrast to Siguna Brahma. It just isn't important to me, and I do not like to lend it undue significance. Nor do I want to encourage mistaking Allah for it.

I take the view that when you pull the curtain back, Hindus are worshiping Brahman/Parabrahman and not any literal Vishnu/Shiva/Shakti/etc.

That is certainly true. Sometimes. Other times they are indeed worshipping some combination of Devas. Or none at all, as is the case with @Aupmanyav .

On the other hand, one can't help but notice that Brahman is hardly ever "directly worshipped", if that even makes any sense.

I have a strong hunch of why that is so. In a nutshell, Hindus tend to realize that there is no reason to fear forms.

Hinduism's mainstream traditions themselves have diverging opinions about that of course, respectively.

Indeed. Hinduism is wise.

There are varying views, of course none condone it but the way we think about it theologically and philosophically varies, on account of Muslims that do and don't understand their religion deeper than others.

That is one view, I suppose. I for one think that it overcomplicates things.