So then "denying God" necessarily implies denying a metaphorical God?
-
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!
What Can Atheism Lead To?
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
What do you mean when you say you deny a physical god anyway?
Nothing (objectively) necessary about it. I was asked for my ideas.
If you're asking Just Me, though, for me to "deny God" would be the equivalent of forgetfulness (as it once was).
I mean denying God in the sense that most atheists say "God does not exist".
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Willamena said:
Willamena said:
I think you missed a turn at Reconciliation Blvd.
I did answer it, at least I thought so. If you (generic person) don't believe God exists but employ God as metaphor, you're talking nonsense because you're not even saying anything. If I said, "wrestle me up a new monkey brain," which (unless I try really hard) means nothing to me (hence I don't believe it), I've said nothing.
If "having a concept of God" is looking at the symbol of the metaphor, rather than what the metaphor is, then yes, that symbolizes being an atheist.
MSizer
MSizer
That's not true. I can say "only god knows" which actually means that probably no human knows. It's not nonsense, and it's a figurative statement using a metaphor that appeals to a being which I don't actually believe exists, yet I attribute traits to based on what others claim about god.
I disagree. As I pointed out before, people quite easily use "Lady Luck" or "Mother Nature" metaphorically without believing in them. We personify and anthropomorphize objects like cars without believing that they're actually alive.
Human beings have a terrific capacity to employ concepts even if they don't believe in their literal truth. Why would God be any different in this regard?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Regardless of whether or not I've "said anything" by employing God as a metaphor, how would doing so mean that I do not possess an atheistic worldview?
Now you're mixing your words. What, precisely, is the difference between looking at the "symbol of the metaphor" and looking at "what the metaphor is" and how does the former "symbolize" being an atheist?
Last edited:
The metaphor has innumerable images, unique for each person who's conceived it. To me, it's the world (hence I sometimes appear to be pantheistic), although probably not the same "world" others see, and I find many other's images appealing. I already described that it's a metaphor for expressionless being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_McFague#Metaphor_as_a_way_of_speaking_about_God
It seems to me that here you're talking more about using metaphors to talk about God than you are using God metaphorically to talk about other things, which is what I thought you were talking about before.
No, I took the turn. What makes me an atheist is (as you or someone pointed out) not what makes others an atheist.
Edit: The image of "God" is not God.
Last edited:
Metaphors are necessary to talk about God. The image of "God" is the metaphor that "talks about God".
If you "so much as use God as a metaphor" and "don't believe that such a God exists", and if you've "said nothing by employing God as a metaphor", then no metaphor has been employed. There is no answer to your question of whether or not you do or don't have an atheistic worldview as a result of failing to express anything.
Because I said so.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Anyway, if we could get back on track - none of this has anything to do with potential results of an atheistic worldview. Anyone have any other thoughts on the OP?
Galileo
Member
I for one would love to see an atheist or agnostic in some sort of political position for once. As of right now there is not a single atheist or even agnostic in congress or the senate. In fact there are no atheist governors in any of the fifty states either. Religion has ruled for far too long, and just look at the state of the U.S. Our education system is a joke compared to the rest of the world, our technology is laughable compared to Asian countries such as Japan, and our currency is now better to be used as tender to light a barbecue grill.
Religion had its chance to rule the world and it failed miserably, It's time to finally have a government that actually separates church and state.
Religion had its chance to rule the world and it failed miserably, It's time to finally have a government that actually separates church and state.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Ok let's assume there is such a worldview. A worldview, by definition, has to encompass more than 'I don't believe X'. How would we further flesh out this worldview? What would it encompass? As there is no atheist dogma or rules of atheist conduct, how would this be decided, and by whom?
Until this is answered the question is moot.
M
Majikthise
Guest
What can atheism lead to? Hmmmmm.
I'ts not blindness and hairy palms , is it?
I'ts not blindness and hairy palms , is it?
footprints
Well-Known Member
As previously stated, the world wouldn't change. What you see today is the end resultant of human intelligence.
The best extreme would be that which we have now in some small pockets, communties living side by side each other, and helping each other in every way possible.
The worst extreme would be the realms of Pol Pot and Stalin.
Of course we would have every variation of these two extremes, in-between.