Where is your God?

[RootsBooster]

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).

Well, an anti-theist IS an atheist, the same cannot be said vice-versa though

 

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.

If you can conceive such a thing then you have already approached it cognitively

 

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).

False trichotomy anyone?

Are you saying that rationality only applies to a thought process?

[janie48]

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.)

You don't need to have a uniform concept of God, you can just believe there is an unseen higher power without necessarily having an image as such. In fact I would suggest most people nationally and globally may believe, perhaps even the majority, even though many are not members of any religious denomination.

[redwhine]

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

So... Supernatural rocks, then?

 

[The 3 states of matter are animal (organic), vegetable (organic) and mineral (inorganic).]

 

[Ryedo40]

You don't need to have a uniform concept of God, you can just believe there is an unseen higher power without necessarily having an image as such. In fact I would suggest most people nationally and globally may believe, perhaps even the majority, even though many are not members of any religious denomination.

 

Janie, and what that[the fact of God not being a uniform concept] suggests to me is that God is simply a subjective idea; people are just inventing it according to their own needs & emotions. It also suggests to me that God doesn't exist as an objective and independent being (if it did, God & its attributes would be the same for everyone - and they're not) Waldo also seemed to be suggesting there may be some special way to know a god exists, or about a god, that doesn't involve thought(rational or irrational). I don't think that's possible. But I was giving the benefit of doubt.

 

One of Waldo's other statements:

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.

 

He's saying if you consider god, then you've got god wrong because god is not possible to intellectualise. It's similar to saying god exists but when you look it spontaneously vanishes. How convenient.

[redwhine]

You don't need to have a uniform concept of God, you can just believe there is an unseen higher power without necessarily having an image as such.

I can just believe I've won the lottery, but they won't let me drive away in a Ferrari until I show them evidence. (...the money.) Show me evidence of this higher power, please. (Unseen higher power? Are we talking invisible overhead electricity cables, with invisible pylons and stuff? :hihi: )

 

In fact I would suggest most people nationally and globally may believe...

You spoiled it with 'may'. May is short for 'may or may not'.

 

...perhaps even the majority, even though many are not members of any religious denomination.

I could suggest that 100% of all people may not believe, and I would be 100% correct.

[Waldo]

So... Supernatural rocks, then?

 

[The 3 states of matter are animal (organic), vegetable (organic) and mineral (inorganic).]

 

 

I didn't mean supernatural rocks!

 

I incorrectly used the term 'inorganic'. I meant not having physical body.

[redwhine]

I didn't mean supernatural rocks!

 

I incorrectly used the term 'inorganic'. I meant not having physical body.

That's 'incorporeal'.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incorporeal

[janlizzy]

No a private detective couldn't have traced my sister as there was only a birth record for my birth mother and I was adopted in the 60s so info wasn't given it took me 5 years with the help of my adoptive mother to find the name of my birth mother. There was a lack of information totally to the adoption and sheffield social services took a long time contacting Hampshire social services neither of them mentioned even when asked about siblings etc

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2014 at 09:02 ----------

 

 

Thats not a very nice way of saying it !! they loved their son and wanted him to be with them and they certainly aren't stupid

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2014 at 09:03 ----------

 

 

Thats where faith steps in , but if you are genuine in your seeking of God he will show himself to you

 

So how did this god show himself to you? As for not very nice,did they thank him for taking the son away so quickly,thats where the pathetic stupidity comes into it.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2014 at 00:49 ----------

 

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.

.

.

Ah tommo he will show himself to you in his own way if you have real faith,cos he moves in mysterious ways this god chappie.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2014 at 00:57 ----------

 

Anyone getting pm's from outlander with the I can show you god theme,followed by rubbish? But for some reason he cannot discuss it on this thread,could it be he can't show any god?

[Guest]

You stated in an earlier post that you prefer to refer to atheists as agnostics, why is this?

 

It was more in reference to when detailing the only 4 possibilities for the origin of the Universe- and what science does know , is what is observable , what is testable and what science can therefore predict on that scale.

 

The theories that get put forward are nothing more, they are hypothesis and none can be proven.

 

I am of course only going by experience when spoken to people who state they are 'atheist' but after a chat go away being unsure- and likely 'agnostic'.

 

If one says they are Atheist and that is it, then it is not scientific in any form or shape- more philosophical.

 

Much of Atheism is based on naturalism/materialism- nothing more.

 

There is no Science involved- in fact, when examined closely, Atheism goes against Science..

[redwhine]

I am of course only going by experience when spoken to people who state they are 'atheist' but after a chat go away being unsure- and likely 'agnostic'.

Unsure of what? ...whether or not they are atheists, perhaps? Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, so, unless they have become theistic, they are still atheists. ('Agnostic' applies to many people, both theist and atheist.)

 

If one says they are Atheist and that is it, then it is not scientific in any form or shape...

It does not need to be. To be an atheist only entails lacking belief in god/God/gods. Nothing else required.

 

- more philosophical.

 

Much of Atheism is based on naturalism/materialism- nothing more.

 

There is no Science involved- in fact, when examined closely, Atheism goes against Science..

You have obviously got no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.

 

Maybe this will help you understand the difference between theism, gnosticism and their privatives...

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QdYoufb0UsQ/TAimA3truGI/AAAAAAAAAA4/pcR-muRgp8c/s1600/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png

 

...but, even then, you're way off the mark bringing, "Much of Atheism is based on naturalism/materialism- nothing more.", and, "Atheism goes against Science", to the table.

 

 

Atheism and theism and any ...ism are concerned with belief.

 

Gnosticism and agnosticism are concerned with knowledge.