we have two different gods…we have the science god and the man god…
both gods are the same…but everyone thinks they know exactly about gods…and they don’t really know
maybe we can say a nature god and a person god…and we fight about it…
I don’t think we are talking about gods, but about idols–the idols of science vs the idols of religion.
duplicate
but wait ier…my new formulation is nature and person…the atheist god is nature…the theist god is person…
I think this encapsulates the issue that is argued…it is just a different way of viewing reality…
And neither fully understands his “God” and of course, the atheist will never actually call it “God”. But other than that, you pretty much have it (although there is still far more to the story).
james please tell more of the story…this would help distill our thinking down…
From the concepts of great things, Man forms both symbols and societies to model them. In the lust to be the most powerful entity in the universe, homosapian formed groups to emulate God. And the man-made God (not being a visible entity) was never to be seen, merely be effective. Thus after a while, the God concept began to gain what was supposed to be a physical manifestation of itself in Man. That manifestation, although not accurate, was (and is) worshiped as “The God”.
Then because others found better representations of that “Ideal God” concept, they formed other social groups based on their theory; “cabals” or “clans”. And from there, the world gained multiple religions worshiping what they believed to be the one true God, yet believed that God to be of different form and make than the others, “My God theory and clan is better than your God theory and clan” - "And I’ll prove it". Let’s meet out in the alley".
“My God can bring floods.”
“My God can bring plagues.”
“My God can turn nation against nation.”
“My God can save souls.”
“My God can create intelligent machines and technology.”
“My God is peaceful but wins in the end.”
.
.
The legacy of the Godwannabes.
And then from there you gained the Human Secularists saying, there is no God, merely humans imagining a God and worshiping their imagination. And with that, they were half right.
What they were all worshiping was a Principle that they could not entirely imagine and thus worshiping it improperly. That Principle actually does have a physical instance and thus is actually physically real as well as being the abstract concept, but the Godwannabes couldn’t even begin to emulate that concept socially. The next best thing is to emulate the “Son of God”. That is doable, but until they understand more precisely how to do that, they are stuck with secret orders, cabals, and clans making the attempt. In the mean time, the secularists make their own version of those same things and in the same ways taking any idealism and morality concepts out of it, “All for us only, no God other than us. No perfection. Whatever we do is good enough”.
That kind of brings you up to date with the whole “multiple Gods” thing going on in your world.
I’m with James.
You keep that up and you’ll get a bad reputation around here. 
When you begin with nothing, your reputation only goes up.
Oh, I wouldn’t say that … and certainly not to make a challenge of it.
You start with a little less than zero. And you can easily get tagged as far more negative.
It is much like entropy, it is easier to tear down than to build up. 
thanks for that…the atheist worships nature and the study of nature[science]…the atheist does not like the word god…but it is their explanation of the mysteries of life and the universe…the atheist misses out unless they are fully educated in psychology and emotional life and love…
If I might add…
The greater concern for Man is not his concept of God, since he can’t emulate that anyway, but rather his concept of the Son of God, the thing that he can emulate in his effort to be God. Fundamentally, there are two forms or processes that can be called the “Son of God”. One, the first most obvious is one born out of the lust for power. By worshiping power itself, their Son of God forms what an astrophysicist would call a “black-hole” or “singularity” (even though it isn’t really a singularity). It is the more atheistic notion.
That black-hole is conceived of as the ultimate power in the universe. Nothing can challenge a black-hole. All is consumed into it. And all is lost within it. Socially, it is a global empire built upon the lust for money/power wherein all people struggle, suffer, and die leaving nothing behind and are soon completely forgotten. The energy of their lives gets dispersed into others and it all amounts to a huge compost heap. Actual black-holes in space do that very thing to all matter entering them. Religiously it is referred to as “Eternal Hell” (because once started, it is seriously hard to stop) and also as the “Abyss”.
The second concept of a Son of God stems from the worship of Life. Conceivably, Life can not only avoid the black-holes, but also create, destroy, and rearrange them. And for that reason, Life is actually a greater power than mindless black-holes. Life is a process of staying aware, evaluating, and compensating - “strategizing” moment by moment. Life requires a harmony of motion with which it coordinates its thoughts and actions. The most perfect and ideal life is like a waltz in its eternal motion. It avoids conflict in favor of out maneuvering, thus staying in harmony at all times. Life knows joy and forethought. Religiously it is referred to as “Eternal Heaven”.
But Life is inherently more complicated to understand than the mere struggle for power because it is careful, thoughtful, self-restrained, strategic seeking of the momentum toward its “purpose” - establishing, maintaining, and protecting anentropic harmony. And only enough power to do the foreseen and prioritized job, because any more would threaten disharmony.
So the real challenge of Man is one of “easy to understand and provoke” (lust for Power) or “hard to understand and guide” (lust for Life). In a way, it is a challenge of anti-entropy (mindless collecting and gathering) versus anentropy (harmoniously balancing needs). The first is easier and thus until they can get Life right, it runs wild and free as Life tries to avoid getting consumed by it and to tame it into a harmony of the living. But it largely depends upon how bright Man really is. So far, it isn’t looking good simply because he can’t understand what being alive actually entails. Life requires the limiting of power and authority, just the opposite of his first temptation.
It is the undisciplined vs the disciplined, wild vs mature, chaotic vs strategic, “Hell vs Heaven”.
My money is on Life, but so far, not on humanity. And it seems that the Pope agrees with me.
‘God’ is a loaded word that people use to manipulate others.
I ask anyone to give me a good reason to use the word ‘god’ when I have better alternatives.
‘God’ is said to be benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient.
One that will send you to ‘hell’ if you don’t follow a list of commands.
‘God’ commands you to never steal, never lie, never commit adultery…
What is that?
‘God’ is said to be supernatural, and necessary for someone to feel love, and be worthy of love.
What is that?
What a confused concept. Why would I use this word, when I’ve better alternatives?
we don’t have to use the word god…the whole idea here is two different ways of viewing what is…the is
has to do with mortality and the creations of the universe and living stuff…ben you are not on board yet…you are hung up on attacking the god thingy…