Where is your God?

[Tommo68]

It has always seemed odd to me that as this is (well it was once) a christian country that when people claim to have heard god we generally think they are mad or at the very least disturbed.

 

Yet if there is a god as some claim you'd think it would want to talk to someone at least once in a while.

.

.

[Waldo]

I attack theism.

 

As do I, from time to time. I think it misses the point, just as atheism does; if you assume that theism puts forward an erroneous conception of god; and then atheism responds (with denial) to this erroneous conception...

 

I am saying that god is something that cannot be approached intellectually; now, even to say 'it' is a 'something' is intellectualising the matter, and as soon as you attempt to rationalise or understand intellectually, you have lost it.

 

I realise that may not make sense; of course it doesn't make sense, because it speaks to the limitation of the thinking mind, and the thinking mind likes to think it has no limitation, and all things can be conceived of and understood in our internal mental dialog, in the form of words.

[RootsBooster]

They have a theological position to defend. Are you not defending atheism?

 

What is there about atheism that might need defending?

 

There's no beliefs, no rules, no dogma, no practices, etc.

It's simply a word for absence of belief.

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2014 at 17:24 ----------

 

As do I, from time to time. I think it misses the point, just as atheism does; if you assume that theism puts forward an erroneous conception of god; and then atheism responds (with denial) to this erroneous conception...

 

I am saying that god is something that cannot be approached intellectually; now, even to say 'it' is a 'something' is intellectualising the matter, and as soon as you attempt to rationalise or understand intellectually, you have lost it.

 

I realise that may not make sense; of course it doesn't make sense, because it speaks to the limitation of the thinking mind, and the thinking mind likes to think it has no limitation, and all things can be conceived of and understood in our internal mental dialog, in the form of words.

Atheism doesn't have to deny anything.

 

I understand where you're coming from, if there is a God or gods, they could exist outside our realms of comprehension and wouldn't necessarily have to conform to any laws of physics/logic etc.

 

That's already a step too far though, the main question should be, what reason do we have to even entertain the idea of any gods in the first place?

 

Books written by humans in a primitive time?

[Waldo]

I'm glad you put "God" is quotes mate, because I doubt its existence too. So what do you mean by God and what are its attributes, if any (if it has no attributes then I have no reason to take the God claim seriously). If it does have attributes, how do you know they are its attributes and not the attributes of something else, something completely natural as opposed to supernatural(an attribute given for God) - and how do you expect me to know you aren't pulling those attributes out of your backside if I'm not permitted to use my rational process to assess whether those claims are true of not.

 

I use quotes to show it's just a word, could have been any other word. If I conceive of it as being anything, that thing (or concept of that thing) resides within the context of my own awareness; so in that sense, like anything else; it *is* my own awareness (only for as long as I am holding the concept in mind ... which I generally do not).

 

When my mind is not entertaining any concepts; that what is, is.

 

God is usually described as a supernatural being that, supernaturally, intervenes in peoples' lives - yet there is no available objective and tangible evidence to support those claims (such claims always turn out to be terribly flawed - just like the claims made by teeny and her sister or in the aphid video I've previously posted.)

 

I do not subscribe to this description. However, there may well be inorganic entities some call supernatural.

 

At the moment, as far as I can tell, you are talking about a nothing - not something. That aside, if "God" can't be discerned through rational process, but "can be" discerned through irrational process, then you may as well be pulling stuff out of your backside. You may as well be talking about snod & snidge and giving them attributes, attributes that can't be quantified, while expecting everyone to take you seriously.

 

Something that is not rational; is not necessarily irrational. We know what rational is. We know when someone is being irrational (unreasonable thought processes). When you smell a flower, is that rational or irrational?

 

If you approach the matter intellectually; you may have no option but to conclude I am talking a load of nonsense (and it is, as it does not make logical sense). I'm not expecting everyone to take me seriously or not; I'm just trying to articulate my own understanding and experience. If you conclude I am talking nonsense, that's fine; perhaps it just means I have failed to articulate myself.

 

Words have usage, and the word God is given to a claimed supernatural being that believers claim exists without providing anything of substance that can qualify its existence. Ask them to substantiate it's existence and it's the same old smoke and mirrors: "you are perhaps doing this because your awareness is so completely focused in to rational pathways, that you cannot at this time, conceive of any other state." or "We are talking about something that may not be subject to that process[rational process]."

 

Storm, ad-infinitum:

 

It does get tiring...

 

Yes, words have usage; probably I am misusing the word by attaching my own meaning to it. Again, I do not conceive of god as a being. It would be more akin to the ground of being, out of which all things arise.

 

The point about awareness being completely focused in to rational pathways; I think that's something a lot of people (myself included) have a problem with. Generally, we are over intellectual.

[RootsBooster]

Something that is not rational; is not necessarily irrational. We know what rational is. We know when someone is being irrational (unreasonable thought processes). When you smell a flower, is that rational or irrational?

 

The existence of the flower is rational

The way your body can smell the flower (detect and recognise/enjoy the scent) is rational.

The reason(s) for smelling the flower may or may not be rational (if not rational then they will be irrational)

 

By definition, if something is not rational, it is irrational.

[Ryedo40]

As do I, from time to time. I think it misses the point, just as atheism does; if you assume that theism puts forward an erroneous conception of god; and then atheism responds (with denial) to this erroneous conception...

 

Just get a few things clarified here:

 

1) Atheists don't hold the suppositions that theists hold; atheists have an absence of belief in the existence of God(God does not exist to them.)

2) Theists suppose(claim) God exists.

3) Atheists consider those claims. But they don't find them convincing.

4) Atheists continue in their original state: they have an absence of belief in the existence of God(God still does not exist to them.)

5) Atheists don't start with the assumption that theism puts forward an erroneous conception of God. They go on what theists claim God is. Then they decide whether such claims are erroneous or not - or whether such claims are worth taking seriously or not.

 

I am saying that god is something that cannot be approached intellectually;

 

To me, because you have no evidence for an "actual God", you are trying to rationalise, or intellectualise, "God" away to a safe place where it can't be quantified - making "God" untouchable; making God a vacuous nothing while claiming it exists. Just more reason for this atheist to not take God claims seriously.

 

I'm watching Storm again:

[Waldo]

What is there about atheism that might need defending?

 

There's no beliefs, no rules, no dogma, no practices, etc.

It's simply a word for absence of belief.

 

Atheism (as used by some) is a very broad term. It doesn't distinguish between, say, anti-theists, agnostics, non-cognitivism, buddhists, taoists, spiritual atheists, angry little men on youtube, or people who live on a desert island and have never heard the term 'god'.

 

Often, I feel the anti-theist brand of atheists, like the term atheist to be more encompassing, so as to make the atheist camp seem bigger; which helps them to isolate and belittle theists all the better (theists in a smaller, diminishing group, with the assumption that size of a theological group is proportional to the validity of it's position).

 

Atheism doesn't have to deny anything.

 

I understand where you're coming from, if there is a God or gods, they could exist outside our realms of comprehension and wouldn't necessarily have to conform to any laws of physics/logic etc.

 

That's already a step too far though, the main question should be, what reason do we have to even entertain the idea of any gods in the first place?

 

Books written by humans in a primitive time?

 

I don't conceive of god or gods as a being or beings. In fact, any concept I do hold of god, is erroneous; it's not something that can be approached cognitively (as much as our minds want to). The very act of believing; is an act of repeatedly affirming certain thoughts within the context of our minds. It's a little ironic intact, that one meaning (etymology anyone?) of the word religious is to do things over and over again...

 

In many ways, I think religion is anti-spiritual. To be calm, to somewhat disengage from the cognition process and to feel a deeper sense of yourself. A deeper awareness.

 

---------- Post added 06-09-2014 at 18:16 ----------

 

The existence of the flower is rational.

 

Let me explain what I was getting at...

 

Something (like an algorithm) can be logically correct. Or it can be logically incorrect. Or, it may be something that cannot be processed logically. I am making 3 distinctions. You could just as easily group 2 of my distinctions together, and say there are a total of 2 distinctions.

 

So, my 3 distinctions with regards rationality are:

 

1. Something is rational (a rational thought process).

2. Something is irrational (a thought process still, but haphazard chaotic; not following reason).

3. Something that is not a thought process (rather, a different modality of awareness).

[Ryedo40]

So, my 3 distinctions with regards rationality are:

 

1. Something is rational (a rational thought process).

2. Something is irrational (a thought process still, but haphazard chaotic; not following reason).

3. Something that is not a thought process (rather, a different modality of awareness).

 

Waldo, how would you know "3." was real though? You could simply be thinking or deluding yourself into believing that you have a different modality of awareness - or confusing your emotions and mistakenly attributing those feelings to a God, or its needs. Also, if everyone who believes had that modality of awareness, wouldn't the majority of them all come to the same conclusions about God - when quite clearly they don't.

[janie48]

Waldo, how would you know "3." was real though? You could simply be thinking or deluding yourself into believing that you have a different modality of awareness - or confusing your emotions and mistakenly attributing those feelings to a God, or its needs. Also, if everyone who believes had that modality of awareness, wouldn't the majority of them come to the same conclusions about God - when quite clearly they don't.

Who are those majority Ryedo? the majority on this forum? nationwide or global?

[Ryedo40]

Who are those majority Ryedo? the majority on this forum? nationwide or global?

 

Global Janie (as I've said before, theists have never had a uniform concept of God or its needs - hence the multitudes of different religions, different denominations/sects within those religions, different values amongst theists, and so on.)