|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 3, 2021 15:52:29 GMT
This anthropomorphizing can be applied to God. I don't know what you mean. Isn't the common definition of God a conscious being? That is my whole point about applying human like thought and consciousness to the cause of the universe and giving it a name. 'God' can also be something that isn't external to the Universe or material things. Just like a dreamer is not external to the dream. Things in a vivid dream appear real, but their dependent on the consciousness of the dreamer. Our reality may be dependent on the consciousness of a dreamer, or 'Brahman'. IMO separating 'God' from 'Reality' would be like separating the image on a mirror from the mirror.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 3, 2021 17:07:22 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods. Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history. Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic. I don't think so. It takes less faith to be sure that Zeus doesn't exist than to believe he does. Same for all the other gods.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 3, 2021 17:34:30 GMT
Sigh... How often must I post this quote from a character who is fully based in science?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 3, 2021 20:33:17 GMT
Being sure there are no Gods takes as much faith as being sure there are Gods. Every culture in every society around the world has had beliefs in Gods. Indigenous cultures all over the world have similar spiritual beliefs stretching as far back as recorded history. Discounting all spiritual experiences others have had as being symptoms of delusion or psychosis is tempting because it's so simplistic. I don't think so. It takes less faith to be sure that Zeus doesn't exist than to believe he does. Same for all the other gods. If there was proof that no Gods exist there would be no religions and everyone would be a Materialist. Consciousness and existence itself are mysterious to me. Nobody understands quantum physics or quantum mechanics. 'Proof of God'..it depends on what people require as proof. Consciousness and existence itself either make you feel a sense of awe or they don't. If they don't, no amount of debate will make you feel it and what others see as proof you will dismiss. 'Proof of God'..it depends on what people require as proof. Is a sunset good enough for you? Probably not. IMO it's like characters in a dream trying to prove to each other that the dreamer exists.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 3, 2021 21:42:35 GMT
Finally...it seems quite important that atheists abide by some definition that includes that atheism is the positive belief that there is no god.
Well, because that is the definition of atheism. the complete belief that there is no god. The definition of "theism" is the complete belief there is a god. Most people, therefore, are surely agnostics in between, just leaning one way or the other. I estimate 90% of people are secretly agnostic. That's the definition. Now, the desire to change definitions is a desire to confuse, period. And there is no natural reason for confusing communication, so the desire of people to redefine these terms, among other terms, is absolute proof that there are supernatural forces at work. That doesn't mean there are gods, but it does prove the supernatural. Materialists have to retain IQs lower than 34 in order to continue their delusions, but atheists aren't necessarily materialists by any means. Materialists are emotionally based people. I'm quite sure that most atheists are not deluded materialists. They just question everything supernatural, but definitely are sure there are no gods making rules. Atheists have to believe in some supernatural forces, unless they refuse to believe in Science. If they don't believe in "magic", they don't believe in Newton's laws of motion or Einstein's relativity. There is no way to believe there are laws of Nature without believing in the Magic and the supernatural forces that make the laws. It is impossible to get laws out of chaos. That is the biggest delusion. So, one is either Atheist, Agnostic, or Theist. There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist, by definition. That is a poor way of saying one is agnostic and leaning towards the belief of Atheism.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 4, 2021 0:42:36 GMT
I don't know what you mean. Isn't the common definition of God a conscious being? That is my whole point about applying human like thought and consciousness to the cause of the universe and giving it a name. 'God' can also be something that isn't external to the Universe or material things. Just like a dreamer is not external to the dream. Things in a vivid dream appear real, but their dependent on the consciousness of the dreamer. Our reality may be dependent on the consciousness of a dreamer, or 'Brahman'. IMO separating 'God' from 'Reality' would be like separating the image on a mirror from the mirror. I touched on that. I also said people adding a "personality/motivation/consciousness" to reality and calling it God. Part of my issue with theism/deism is that everyone seems to have a different idea about it and it is very fuzzy. To me it is just reality and I can't know what the source of it is, if any. At best I think they are a lot of neat ideas that make for good stories, if they are kept to mere speculation and stories. Same goes for something like a multiverse or any attempt to explain "existence."
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 4, 2021 2:30:39 GMT
'God' can also be something that isn't external to the Universe or material things. Just like a dreamer is not external to the dream. Things in a vivid dream appear real, but their dependent on the consciousness of the dreamer. Our reality may be dependent on the consciousness of a dreamer, or 'Brahman'. IMO separating 'God' from 'Reality' would be like separating the image on a mirror from the mirror. I touched on that. I also said people adding a "personality/motivation/consciousness" to reality and calling it God. Part of my issue with theism/deism is that everyone seems to have a different idea about it and it is very fuzzy. To me it is just reality and I can't know what the source of it is, if any. At best I think they are a lot of neat ideas that make for good stories, if they are kept to mere speculation and stories. Same goes for something like a multiverse or any attempt to explain "existence." Until someone kills another for believing the wrong "one true god". If we would all just 'live and let live, believe and let believe', this would all be academic. But no, coexist? We are seemingly incapable of that.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 4, 2021 3:20:58 GMT
I touched on that. I also said people adding a "personality/motivation/consciousness" to reality and calling it God. Part of my issue with theism/deism is that everyone seems to have a different idea about it and it is very fuzzy. To me it is just reality and I can't know what the source of it is, if any. At best I think they are a lot of neat ideas that make for good stories, if they are kept to mere speculation and stories. Same goes for something like a multiverse or any attempt to explain "existence." Until someone kills another for believing the wrong "one true god". If we would all just 'live and let live, believe and let believe', this would all be academic. But no, coexist? We are seemingly incapable of that. I agree, though I think skepticism is very important. Once other people start demanding that other people believe what they believe when it comes to stuff that can't be even shown to exist, that is when we start having problems. Beliefs don't just stay in your head in most cases. If people believe something is true they are going to act according to that belief. "Believe and let believe" is a serious problem in many cases, because beliefs have an inevitable impact on how we act. The more irrational the belief the more harmful it will be. If you believe that the world is run by lizard people, you get stuff like Qanon.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 4, 2021 3:51:34 GMT
Is there anyone here that honestly believes in every God? So the saying is true, everyone is an atheist. Disbelief/unbelief, I have opinions but does it matter?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 4, 2021 10:11:10 GMT
Finally...it seems quite important that atheists abide by some definition that includes that atheism is the positive belief that there is no god.
Well, because that is the definition of atheism. the complete belief that there is no god. The definition of "theism" is the complete belief there is a god. Most people, therefore, are surely agnostics in between, just leaning one way or the other. I estimate 90% of people are secretly agnostic. That's the definition. Now, the desire to change definitions is a desire to confuse, period. And there is no natural reason for confusing communication, so the desire of people to redefine these terms, among other terms, is absolute proof that there are supernatural forces at work. That doesn't mean there are gods, but it does prove the supernatural. Materialists have to retain IQs lower than 34 in order to continue their delusions, but atheists aren't necessarily materialists by any means. Materialists are emotionally based people. I'm quite sure that most atheists are not deluded materialists. They just question everything supernatural, but definitely are sure there are no gods making rules. Atheists have to believe in some supernatural forces, unless they refuse to believe in Science. If they don't believe in "magic", they don't believe in Newton's laws of motion or Einstein's relativity. There is no way to believe there are laws of Nature without believing in the Magic and the supernatural forces that make the laws. It is impossible to get laws out of chaos. That is the biggest delusion. So, one is either Atheist, Agnostic, or Theist. There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist, by definition. That is a poor way of saying one is agnostic and leaning towards the belief of Atheism. What is a gnostism?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 4, 2021 12:37:57 GMT
Just because atheists co-existed with religious/spiritual people doesn't discount the fact spiritually is a component of pretty much every culture. Aboriginal cultures separated by thousands and thousands of miles geographically have extremely similar spiritual practices. I realize Materialists probably won't be interested in reading Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade... Oh well. I've read both, as well as William James, and Elaine Pagels, the prolific and extremely interesting religious historian. Because I have no belief in literal gods and deities doesn't mean I can't have an interest in the subjects of spirituality, mysticism and comparative religions and the history behind them. I wonder if many 'spiritually minded' sorts have done much reading of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other contemporary writers on the topic of atheism; not to mention the reams of material written over the centuries on the topic. I may be wrong about this, but in my own empirical experience I've found that the religiously oriented seem to be more reluctant to open their minds to the possibility of no god than the agnostic/atheistically minded appear to be about the possibility of a god, or at the very least an examination into the subject of god-belief. I've met virtually no believers who have any interest whatever in discussion of atheism except in the most purely dismissive manner.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 4, 2021 13:29:58 GMT
Just because atheists co-existed with religious/spiritual people doesn't discount the fact spiritually is a component of pretty much every culture. Aboriginal cultures separated by thousands and thousands of miles geographically have extremely similar spiritual practices. I realize Materialists probably won't be interested in reading Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade... Oh well. I've read both, as well as William James, and Elaine Pagels, the prolific and extremely interesting religious historian. Because I have no belief in literal gods and deities doesn't mean I can't have an interest in the subjects of spirituality, mysticism and comparative religions and the history behind them. I wonder if many 'spiritually minded' sorts have done much reading of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other contemporary writers on the topic of atheism; not to mention the reams of material written over the centuries on the topic. I may be wrong about this, but in my own empirical experience I've found that the religiously oriented seem to be more reluctant to open their minds to the possibility of no god than the agnostic/atheistically minded appear to be about the possibility of a god, or at the very least an examination into the subject of god-belief. I've met virtually no believers who have any interest whatever in discussion of atheism except in the most purely dismissive manner. You'd actually label yourself a 'Materialist'? That's sad.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Aug 4, 2021 13:54:41 GMT
Just because atheists co-existed with religious/spiritual people doesn't discount the fact spiritually is a component of pretty much every culture. Aboriginal cultures separated by thousands and thousands of miles geographically have extremely similar spiritual practices. I realize Materialists probably won't be interested in reading Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade... Oh well. I've read both, as well as William James, and Elaine Pagels, the prolific and extremely interesting religious historian. Because I have no belief in literal gods and deities doesn't mean I can't have an interest in the subjects of spirituality, mysticism and comparative religions and the history behind them. I wonder if many 'spiritually minded' sorts have done much reading of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other contemporary writers on the topic of atheism; not to mention the reams of material written over the centuries on the topic. I may be wrong about this, but in my own empirical experience I've found that the religiously oriented seem to be more reluctant to open their minds to the possibility of no god than the agnostic/atheistically minded appear to be about the possibility of a god, or at the very least an examination into the subject of god-belief. I've met virtually no believers who have any interest whatever in discussion of atheism except in the most purely dismissive manner. I'm a former atheist. I don't have any interest in reading about atheism, because my beliefs are based on my own personal experiences, and I have enough proof to obliterate any doubts I used to have. I have essentially zero interest in either atheism or Christianity, because I've been there and done that, and there isn't anything left to explore.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 4, 2021 15:55:05 GMT
I don't think so. It takes less faith to be sure that Zeus doesn't exist than to believe he does. Same for all the other gods. If there was proof that no Gods exist there would be no religions and everyone would be a Materialist. Consciousness and existence itself are mysterious to me. Nobody understands quantum physics or quantum mechanics. 'Proof of God'..it depends on what people require as proof. Consciousness and existence itself either make you feel a sense of awe or they don't. If they don't, no amount of debate will make you feel it and what others see as proof you will dismiss. 'Proof of God'..it depends on what people require as proof. Is a sunset good enough for you? Probably not. IMO it's like characters in a dream trying to prove to each other that the dreamer exists. Consciousness and existence are mysterious to me as well. I don't see how existence or non-existence of a god has anything to do with that. Sunsets (and not to mention scenic mountain vistas such as those at Yosemite) are completely awe-inspiring. It doesn't matter whether they were created by an intelligent being or not. For me a sign that when it comes to religion everybody has it wrong is the sheer diversity of deities. To me this is particulary damaging to literal interpretations of the familiar Judeo-Christian religions. I think non-literalist theists should try to distance themselves from the literalists to better maintain credibility for their position.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 4, 2021 16:02:05 GMT
If there was proof that no Gods exist there would be no religions and everyone would be a Materialist. Consciousness and existence itself are mysterious to me. Nobody understands quantum physics or quantum mechanics. 'Proof of God'..it depends on what people require as proof. Consciousness and existence itself either make you feel a sense of awe or they don't. If they don't, no amount of debate will make you feel it and what others see as proof you will dismiss. 'Proof of God'..it depends on what people require as proof. Is a sunset good enough for you? Probably not. IMO it's like characters in a dream trying to prove to each other that the dreamer exists. Consciousness and existence are mysterious to me as well. I don't see how existence or non-existence of a god has anything to do with that. Sunsets (and not to mention scenic mountain vistas such as those at Yosemite) are completely awe-inspiring. It doesn't matter whether they were created by an intelligent being or not. For me a sign that when it comes to religion everybody has it wrong is the sheer diversity of deities. To me this is particulary damaging to literal interpretations of the familiar Judeo-Christian religions. I think non-literalist theists should try to distance themselves from the literalists to better maintain credibility for their position. I agree with that. But on the other hand, there's not much sense in worrying about appearing 'credible' to others unless you're trying to convert someone.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 4, 2021 16:09:36 GMT
Until someone kills another for believing the wrong "one true god". If we would all just 'live and let live, believe and let believe', this would all be academic. But no, coexist? We are seemingly incapable of that. I agree, though I think skepticism is very important. Once other people start demanding that other people believe what they believe when it comes to stuff that can't be even shown to exist, that is when we start having problems. Beliefs don't just stay in your head in most cases. If people believe something is true they are going to act according to that belief."Believe and let believe" is a serious problem in many cases, because beliefs have an inevitable impact on how we act. The more irrational the belief the more harmful it will be. If you believe that the world is run by lizard people, you get stuff like Qanon. Sad, but true.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 4, 2021 17:02:55 GMT
Consciousness and existence are mysterious to me as well. I don't see how existence or non-existence of a god has anything to do with that. Sunsets (and not to mention scenic mountain vistas such as those at Yosemite) are completely awe-inspiring. It doesn't matter whether they were created by an intelligent being or not. For me a sign that when it comes to religion everybody has it wrong is the sheer diversity of deities. To me this is particulary damaging to literal interpretations of the familiar Judeo-Christian religions. I think non-literalist theists should try to distance themselves from the literalists to better maintain credibility for their position.I agree with that. But on the other hand, there's not much sense in worrying about appearing 'credible' to others unless you're trying to convert someone. You don't need to be trying to convert someone to be concerned with credibility. In a coalition government you don't need to convert your diverse allies, just find enough common ground to work together. For example, I think moderate Muslims should be more vocal in condemning Islamic radicals, to broaden their appeal in the international community.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 4, 2021 17:08:34 GMT
I agree with that. But on the other hand, there's not much sense in worrying about appearing 'credible' to others unless you're trying to convert someone. You don't need to be trying to convert someone to be concerned with credibility. In a coalition government you don't need to convert your diverse allies, just find enough common ground to work together. For example, I think moderate Muslims should be more vocal in condemning Islamic radicals, to broaden their appeal in the international community. A coalition government is one thing, an individual worrying that their spiritual views may not be 'credible' to strangers is something else.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 4, 2021 17:12:32 GMT
You don't need to be trying to convert someone to be concerned with credibility. In a coalition government you don't need to convert your diverse allies, just find enough common ground to work together. For example, I think moderate Muslims should be more vocal in condemning Islamic radicals, to broaden their appeal in the international community. A coalition government is one thing, an individual worrying that their spiritual views may not be 'credible' to strangers is something else. To paraphrase Polonius, I try to maintain credible views to myself and then the credibility to strangers takes care of itself.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 4, 2021 17:17:11 GMT
A coalition government is one thing, an individual worrying that their spiritual views may not be 'credible' to strangers is something else. To paraphrase Polonius, I try to maintain credible views to myself and then the credibility to strangers takes care of itself. 'Credible views' is open to interpretation. What may be normal spiritual perspectives in some cultures may be a sign of madness in others.
|
|