Jerry,
You have not answered my question about you and the Greeks!
If you can answer that one then perhaps it will provide a model for me to answer your question. Frankly, I don’t think that either of us can do it!
But I have already said that I am not seeking to force you to prove a negative. I am simply asking you to provide some non-deistic explanations for things that plainly exist.
In case you missed it, your doing so, in indisputable terms, would force me to concede that your claims are correct and God is “Bullshitâ€, an idea that should be “burned out of people’s brainsâ€, is a “form of retardationâ€, is “wrongâ€, is “ignorantâ€, and “drives people insane.â€
If you are unable to do so, and it is becoming clearer and clearer that this is the case, perhaps you can simply do the right thing and retract the claims.
A page from a couple of minutes of my internal monologue, rudely transcribed…
Person A: I might characterise myself as not indifferent to the search for an understanding of God. This might mean; ‘what will I allow myself to consider as valid characterisations of the Divine, and with what criterion of validity?’ It also means, perhaps dishearteningly, that many of my Christian friends fail to acknowledge confusions, restrictions, binds etc… and yet they believe…; they are supposed to be ‘closer’ to God. But my pretension says ‘I think not’.
Person B: Does theology go too far by adopting a criterion of validity which is itself a chimera? Rationalist theology is an oxymoron, not because God is irrational, but because he is neither rational nor irrational. And what is the ‘rational’, but a configuration of power, a finite horizon with a pretension to ‘universality’? Is there an ‘otherwise than Being’ as Levinas says? Certainly Derrida would have said that the power of the logos domesticates any Other. But is this the case?
Person A: It is true I think that most Christians make no apologies for trying to place God within a rationalist discourse which is, perhaps, antagonistic towards them from the very beginning. Does this make them unknowing co-conspirators in the Death of God? Are they confused? Or does it remain as a possibility that God can arise within the horizon of Being? Heidegger once said, in his later life, that if he were ever to write a theology - to which he had been tempted at various times - he would make a special point of omitting all use of the concept of ‘Being’. What does this tell us, if not that the original Pauline conception of the Divine has been corrupted by Platonic metaphysics?
Person C: Yes but then what does this say about our modern Christians? If they do not even see the problem, how can they have the answer? They have ‘their’ answer, but surely we cannot say that everyone who believes, who ‘holds-to-be-true’, manages to attain knowledge.
Person B: Again, this ‘holding-to-be-true’ is itself a very rationalist conception of ‘belief’. Surely there are many who are confused and who understand nothing about what a God might be. And remember that ‘be’ already presents a picture of what ‘is’. Or rather a ‘criterion’ for what qualifies as being.
Person C: But are we not on the edge of arbitrariness, of pure folly, when we exempt God from even the most basic of our usual epistemological criteria? Most Christians do not cede this, but believe rather that these criteria can, and indeed are, met in full. Most will resort to this kind of exemption only as a form of special pleading, when they find themselves caught in a bind. Which is indicative of they way in which they are thinking overall.
But you want to say that we ought to consider this exemption as itself characteristic of the Infinite, of the Divine? How then are we able to speak of it at all?
Person A: I suppose there is a good chance that we cannot have it both ways. Either there are so very many Christians who are purely confused and nothing else, or else we read their confusions into the doctrine of Christianity itself. In fact looking closer we see that the doctrine has been handled by many Christians, who may themselves belong to the category of ‘the confused’. However if we go back to someone like Paul, and try to read his understanding out of his writings, then perhaps we get a glimpse of a Christianity which is, in some respect viable. But this viability is only a second order concern; wholly reliant on the question of the Divine itself, which it does not seem has been asked correctly or often enough in the history of western thought, either by believers or, indeed, their dissenters.
Person B: Of course we do not apply a blanket generalisation to all Christians, and if we did it would say more about us than about them.
Regards,
James
Hi, James.
I like that.
I think a big part of the problem in how to view Christians is that religious belief systems are unlike philosophical systems, in that they are handed down through family lines, and people generally participate in them while very young. In other words, to call someone a “Socialist” is to imply that they have thought a great deal about economics and the Government. To call someone a “Christian” doesn’t imply anything like that, necessarily. If people regard Christians as ignorant or deluded, many times that may be because they are comparing Christian beliefs described by a typical church-goer to skeptical concerns developed by a cherished author or professor.
"No this is an incorrect definition. Atheism is the denial or rejection of belief/worship in noun gods. "
from the perspective of a ‘god fearing’ human that would be the definition… Dr.Satanical was obviously offering you a new and exciting perspective 
"I’m always amazed at the anger. From where does it come, atheists? If it’s directed at the organized religions that you so despise for whatever reasons, I suppose that would be one thing. But it seems to go beyond that.
Why the anger towards those that simply hold a philosophical belief that there is a God?
This confuses me to no end."
Religions have CONSISTENTLY LIED to people in order to get them to do what they want. i shouldn’t have to say any more. it confuses me to no end that you dont understand that. (edit:on second thought, perhaps its not actually your belief that there is a god that bothers people, but the fact that god is nearly always linked to religion)
i do not attempt to judge character based on one’s beliefs, but by how they express their beliefs. the fact that one requires to believe in an all powerful being created and exploited by power hungry humans (whether there actually is a god or not has absolutely nothing to do with it) is more humorous than upsetting… most of the atheists i know, are very open minded people. they will sit down and have a geniune conversation with anyone about anything except religion. religious advocated are usually the most closed minded people you will meet. i understand trusting your beliefs and what we all think we know. but at the same time you have to realize that maybe have trusted the wrong people…
my thoughts about god:
god is THE all knowing, all powerful being of the universe, right?
before something similar to the big bang, all matter and energy existed in an infinitely large and infinetly small “thing”
since this thing contained all matter and energy in the universe, it would be fair to assume that it was all knowing and all powerful.
relating scientific theory to religious theory you get a new theory that makes even more sence then either could by itself.
god IS everything, his consciousness before the “big bang” has spread to the consciousness of life in the universe. the life of the universe dictates whether god is good or evil, by the things that we do and the things that we feel and the things that we think and the ideas that we have.
every couple godly increments of time he/she/it is returned to the form of infinetly large and infinetly small singularity, where he/she/it can reflect on the the never ending and completely infinite cycle of the universe
the many different ways religions describe souls are merely another way of describing the undeniable, indestructible, and (at least right now, for us) incomprehensible energy that IS consciousness.
Superman
Can I just say that when this was started you opened a can of worms. This thread has the potential to live for months.
I have come across from the forum I usually read because it was related to a topic in those forums. It’s called Scientific Questions and Theories thread. But religious folk, well no, christians swamped it and turned it into a Science V Religion thread. Take a look. It’s on page 15 right now. Go here to see where this thread is going.
Anyway, my view on the whole is god real thing is this. If there is a god, then it’s likely that he is/was nothing more than a creation made by an ancient novelist. You could say it’s like people following the harry potter books sometime in the future as a religion and Mr. Potter is like Jesus.
There is also the chance that god is real, but really an alien. I mean, is it really so far fetched to believe that aliens manipulated the DNA stands on this planet or even terraformed the surface of the planet itself?
And whats to say that it wasn’t someone from the future who went back and started living the life of Jesus himself, it’d be worse if it was some missionary as well. They’d spread the word alright.
Anyway, these questions may never be answered.
Hi Uccisore,
Unfortunately, this is the biggest problem in Europe, since many people only have their participation as children in mind when they think of Christianity. They have seldom participated as a teenager or as a young adult, except to be confirmed, and it appears outlandish to them when they are confronted with the subject as a parent.
Catholic children are indoctrinated earlier that Protestant children, which has the effect that Catholics grow up with an aura around Christianity that supports superstition, whereas Protestant children meet head on with a completely otherworldly doctrine in puberty, which encourages a complete lack of interest. It doesn’t need to be said that the number of people who develop some kind of spirituality is exceedingly small, and is dwindling on. Sometimes I think that Catholics have a better chance.
The answer to this dilemma, offered by “free†Churches, is evangelisation. However, this is mainly the recruiting source of Evangelical groups of varying denominations, based on a very ham-fisted theology that is more a kind of remedial education than spirituality. There are of course exceptions to the rule and it is a field that had me fascinated for some time, but the fruits are not what they are said to be. There is a lot of latent psychology going on; people are made dependent and “innocent†in a rather ungainly way that often makes them unable to react to the requirement of life. For example, there are a lot of unstable people who are attracted by such “innocence†and exploit it – which believers resent, not recognising the mental instability that causes this behaviour. They are themselves insecure, and feel threatened by such a test.
This is because the statement, “God loves you and so do I†is often more binding than believers are prepared to be. The number of communications that are transported in that message is often not seen by believers and they are often surprised by the expectation it awakens. The evangelist speaks these words and they are heard as being spoken for the whole Church. When the evangelist has left or is not present, the believer is often left alone with the expectations of new converts. The problems that arise here are connected with the fact that the germ that grows in the believer is often an emotional germ, not a spiritual one. It is a yearning or hunger, but not spiritual food.
Of course such people who yearn for God are very pleasant and I could embrace them all. Some of the nicest people I know belong to evangelical churches. The problem occurs, when they are swamped by challenges and provocation, which often occurs. That is where they look for simple and short answers, making their behaviour pliable in order to restore the peace that they depend upon to keep their vision in place. They can then become militant over issues that are not really existentially threatening, but threaten their harmony. They can become racist, reactionary and deeply prejudiced if the challenge or provocation is large enough, which then makes them into hypocrites because they then throw their “lovey-dovey†attitudes overboard.
The spiritual answer to such things is to be seen in Jesus, whose life is exemplary in dealing with challenges and provocation. His answer is to find the root of trust, to find the spirit and truth, and not to just react with piety. It is this faith that is an expression of inner strength without having power. It is composure in tumult; it is calmness, quietude and serenity in commotion. It is dedication and commitment, but not emotional actionism. But this is something that Christians seldom learn – with exceptions of course.
This is what gives an “Atheist†a position from which he is obviously right when he expresses criticism. I have said before, there are many reasons not to become a Christian. I can’t blame people who would rather sit on the fence or say there is no evidence of God. The true evidence would be evident in the spiritual believers, if only there were more of them.
Shalom
Bob writes:
And that is precisely the point. Spiritual believers. A belief in God that is demonstrated through their acting out. Why so very few? If one looks at the actions of most (not all) believers raised in any traditional religious setting, then the efficacy of a belief in God is certainly questionable. If one is sensitive to their personal spirituality, the ‘tradtional’ manifestation of God offered by any religion would common sensically be rejected. Who, seeking spiritual understanding would choose to believe in a God that condone’s (in silence) the practices of those who proclaim their belief in God?
Of course, this is a simplistic question, but agnostics and atheists have, at one time or another, asked this question of themselves. If a belief in God is the spiritual answer, the awakening, then why are things the way they are?
It could be argued that, with few exceptions, agnostics and atheists are the only ones who see clearly, and in a common sense way, reject the traditional God(s) in favor of finding their spiritual satisfaction without God.
They used to say that science was the death of God, and perhaps that has some truth to it, but traditional religion has done more to ‘kill’ God than any other motive force known. We all seek to know and understand our spiritual selves, but the path of traditional religion as demonstrated seems the least likely way to find that spirituality.
JT
I find that generally one can take the opinion of a religous advocate, change a few words around and make their opinion agreeable to a non or anti-religious advocate.
I consider myself an atheist or agnostic not because I think religions are wrong in every way possible, but because I do not believe in a god the same way that religious folk (christians mostly) do. Its a lot less confusing for a christian to understand that I dont believe in god at all, than to try to explain how i believe in something similar to what you call spirituality, but with no godlike being… instead i believe your idea of a ‘god’ is much more applicable to what you would get if you were to combine everything in the universe… I also believe that your necessity to associate an all powerful being who is in complete control of everything is an extremely great weakness. this creates a false-hope and dependency… the fact that everyone is doomed to die does not make me sad or depressed becasue of a blind faith in some super being, but of a faith in myself and others like me to do the right thing. catastrophe may or may not occur… i will one day die, just like everyone else. but instead of hoping and praying (pun intended) to go somewhere “better” after i die (whether consciousness ends at death or not is irrevelant), i choose to live a life of happiness, so when i’m a half second from death, all that i will feel is happiness for my life and how i have lives, rather than anxiety, wishing hoping and praying that i’ll get into heaven.
I also find it very hard to believe that an all knowing, all powerful being would require worship… it seems to me that worship is something that an imperfect being would require (such as a human)… and in all the genius that went into creating religions that people have blindly followed since the beginning of human society, they neglected to consider that desire to be worshiped is a human trait, an imperfect trait. something that humans may require if they created a race of beings… not something an all powerful, all knowing, “god” would require.
lady is home, time to spend some quality time
The word you are looking for is pantheist
Hi JT,
This is where we need to ask whether we genuinely have knowledge of the nature of God, or the reality behind that metaphor. Isn’t it rather the inspiration and insight we receive that makes us assume what the source of that insight could be like? I quite like Angels story in another thread, which I have adapted for this thread:
A Churchgoer and a Mystic are trying to get home in the dark of night and they can hardly see their hands in front of their faces. The lightening strikes and the churchgoer looks at the lightening and falls off of the path. When the lightening strikes, the Mystic looks at the path and arrives home. Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the Apostles are the lightening, don’t look at them. We need to follow the Way.
I believe that the only explanation for the silence is that we are a part of “God” - as Meister Eckhardt says, our communion is effected on a spiritual level, where we become one. Either we are in union with him, allowing his will to be manifest in our lives, or we are instrumental in hindering his will, and he suffers with us. Of course we are then in a dilemma with his omnipotence - but perhaps he is omnipotent where he has communion with us - inother words, “Faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains!”
This is, in effect, the threat that is spoken to Israel and Juda through the Prophet Hosea:
The Prophets were on a lonely mission in many cases. I am often surprised that Christians can’t imagine the same applying to them.
Hi IntegraGS-R,
In its original context, “worship” is bowing down to or acknowledging truth. Like much of what is done in Religion, the ritual accentuates this, but then again, that is why we need rituals at all (also everyday rituals). We need a means to accentuate those things that are important.
Shalom
“The word you are looking for is pantheist”
Dr.Satanical
i wasn’t looking for a word, i was attempting to describe my point of view, labels will cause people to have preconcieved ideas that are distracting acknowledging or understand a different point of view… i read what you wrote on Satanism (the web page devoted to explaining what it is and where the name came from) and agree that labels can take advantage of ignorance for one’s own benefit, but i dont wish to take advantage of anyone… if someone is going to understand what i’m saying and/or support it, i dont want it to be because i tricked them into it. know what i’m saying?
for anyone that doesn’t know (i say this becuase i didnt’ know before looking it up):
Main Entry: pan·the·ism
Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
the definition is almost insulting to those who would be associated with it. as if its to say “we know that our views on god are the only write ones, but we gotta called these other guys something”. having said that i guess its be expected 
"In its original context, “worship” is bowing down to or acknowledging truth. Like much of what is done in Religion, the ritual accentuates this, but then again, that is why we need rituals at all (also everyday rituals). We need a means to accentuate those things that are important. "
-Bob
i do not doubt what you are saying, as i have no reason to. however, you must know the context of which i use “worship”
Main Entry: 2worship
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -shiped or -shipped; -ship·ing or -ship·ping
transitive senses
1 : to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power
2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion
intransitive senses : to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship
i was referring to the first use according to m-w.com… whether or not the original intent of the words in the bible meant otherwise has no consequence. most christians beleive that “god” desires to be worshiped, and i find this absurd. not only do most believe he desires it, but they also believe he requires it. even more absurd 
As most dictionaries are written and edited with a heavy christian slant, you generally can’t trust many dictionaries to provide acurate definitions that are not totally condencending for any sort of non christian religious practice.
Pantheism translates directly into ‘all is god’
another reason i do not like labels is how they can relate two completely different things.
most of the open-minded religious guys are confused why they are greeted with such hostility when they are seeking an open-minded conversation. this lies mostly in the connections involved with the label.
say there are 500 people that make up ideological group A
1 of the people, is considered faithful by the group and their ideology, but likes to do a lot of things that would be considered “strange” in our society.
if you had never met or heard of idealogical group A or their ideology, and you met the 1 “strange” guy… the strangeness of the 1 guy may not cause you to doubt the idealogy completely, but would at least cause some kind of doubt concering the group and their ideology.
the more dissatisfying the “strange” guy, the stronger your initial ‘impression’ of the ideology of the group would be.
another example:
there have been many ‘crazy’ conspiracy theorists… people who are either overly paranoid or dillusional… these ‘crazy’ people are usually the ones that come to the foreground of one’s thoughts when conspiracy theory is mentioned.
then, when someone presents a conspiracy theory backed with facts, it discontinues being a theory… however the facts are often ignored because conspiracy theorists are ‘crazy’… (of course this example doesn’t apply to everyone’s thought process, but i think most should be able to relate enough to understand my point)
Perhaspse one of the most annoying things to “atheist” is that God is so poorly defined. I like to say that some ideas of God are proveable, some are contingent, and some are impossible.
For example, if God is that which causes everything, than to prove him we only need two assumtions:
- Everything has a cause
- The union (in the mathimatical sense) of two or more things is a thing.
Of course than God is only the union of all things that are causes, which is basiclly to say God is most everything. So pretty much pantheism of some type. And most of all it requires no action on my part. Nature dose not desire or require my worship.
Then there are the contingent ones: Like a big guy that decides when floods are going to happen. Well, we certianly can’t predict floods that well, so maybe there is a guy who can manipulate the micro details in such a way that makes floods. Of course there is no good reason to have faith there is such a guy, or to try to bribe him as the pegans did. So agian I do nothing with these contingent Gods.
Finnially there are the impossible concentptions. Most famous of these being the being with all the perfections. First of all Omnipotence and Omnibenevolance seem to be in direct conflict. For if one can do anything, then one could do evil, but an omnibenevolent being can’t do evil.
So why do I call myself an atheist. Because I don’t actively belive in anything most people would call a God. Sure some Gods are possible, and other “Gods” are even nessisary. But no God affects my life in even the slightest way.
God is “we don’t understand it, so God did it”, or “we feel so small and insignificant, so God created us in his image”, or “I had this powerful emotional experience, it was God”. Yes, I’m overgeneralizing – the point is that I have yet to see a single good argument or convincing proof for the existence of God, which is why I’m an atheist.
In other words, I think God is an invisible pink unicorn.
no way… I saw him… he is Fuchsia…
-Imp
I’ve never posted here, but I feel compelled to enter this discussion.
If you hinge the whole god discussion on rather or not he exists, then you’re going to get nowhere. The Theist can always hide behind God’s omnipotence, and the atheist can always hide behind the lack of technical proof of God. My choice to believe or not hinges on the effect of the belief because it can be measured, or at least observed.
I choose to not believe because that effect appears to me to be negative. Religion is the single greatest cause of war, hatred and exclusion in the world. It’s power dominates peoples lives and blinds them to the realities of the world outside of their convictions. It allows ignorance, pointless tradition and unparalleled closed-mindedness to not only exist in our society, but to be praised and aspired to.
Religion has become nothing more than another system of power that is no more positive than any other system, but it given the power of the blind beliefs of millions to allow it to create greater problems than anything else. As a group of wanna-be philosophers, you must agree that questioning is one of the most important activities that people can do. Religion preaches the exact opposite of this, and because of that, I cannot follow it.