What is the idea of God which you reject?

nobodythere

I've been studying religion and mythology a lot lately. One thing I've found is that when people say "God" they mean a million different things, often different from the original intent of the religion they follow.

I ask the question after reading Chapter 3 of The Ascent of Humanity (http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter3-1.php), which proposes that the modern idea of God as something outside of our realm arose through science in the 16th century.

orestes

All of them.

Zillah

grasshopa wrote: »

which proposes that the modern idea of God as something outside of our realm arose through science in the 16th century.

Makes sense. Primitive peoples wouldn't have had any notion about the scale of the universe or its finite nature. Very plausible scenario in which we once again see religious belief adapting (fleeing from...) scientific discoveries.

nobodythere

For now all I can say is "Tat Tvam Asi". Off to bed I'll reply tomorrow

willowwan

what is the idea I reject? - that 'god' is not inside the individual...so yes, as god is a force 'outside of our realm'....whether thats an idea that is attributed to science, disconnection from nature and earth, systems of greed and power.....

Dades

grasshopa wrote: »

What is the idea of God which you reject?

The interventionist type of god, for the most part.

I'm pretty much agnostic about any other type people care to speculate about.

ChocolateSauce

In order of decreasing _____ (insert relevant word here)

Monotheistic gods - near fundamentalist atheism
Polytheistic gods
All others
Other abstract concepts - agnosticism

Zillah

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

In order of decreasing verocity:

Monotheistic gods - near fundamentalist atheism
Polytheistic gods
All others
Other abstract concepts - agnosticism

I really wish verocity was a word.

Dave!

I wish vaginity was a word.

Gambler

Every concept, I don't believe there is any higher power (inside or outside of my being), I don't believe we have a "soul", I don't believe there is a "collective unconscious" linking us all.

condra

Anything which implies a mysterious, powerful, invisable intelligence.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah wrote: »

I really wish verocity was a word.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

MrDaithi

Dave! wrote: »

I wish vaginity was a word.

It is now

Otherwise to answer the original question: I reject them all. There is no deity, pure and simple.

diverdriver

The whole point of atheism is that it's not an 'ism'. You're not joining a group dedicated to proving Gods doesn't exist. You become atheist when you realise, in a flash of light, as it where, that there is no supernatural being who created us etc. We humans invented the idea.

Gods are pretty much universal since man came into being. We do need to explain the universe around us. Without any scientific knowledge a lot of what happens appears to have some form of guiding hand. The sun rises and descends every day. Who does that, well someone must. Let's call him God!

Once you cross the line and accept reality, your whole perspective of the world changes. Life becomes more precious and you look at apparently intelligent people dedicate their lives and have serious discussions, sometimes deeply philosophical and complex about something that simply doesn't exist. It's almost pathetic. I often wonder how many priests wake up eventually and realise they dedicated their lives to something isn't real.

Having said that many people dedicate themselves to fiction, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars etc. It's not that different. We have invented many fantasy figures over the years. Santa Claus, Fairies, Leprechaun etc. We know they don't exist, yet there is more evidence for some of these fantasy figures than there is for a God.

I know that when I die, that will be that. I will live on in a sort of a way through my two sons much as I carry part of my Father and his Father in me.

If there is any concept of God at all, it simply the universe itself. But it had no consciousness it just exists and provides the vehicle in which we fly.

nobodythere

diverdriver wrote: »

The sun rises and descends every day. Who does that, well someone must. Let's call him God!

True that. I like the way Joseph Campbell explains it, when he's talking about the beginning of burial rituals, and how it indicates a fundamental shift in our thinking. He puts us in the shoes of some neanderthol man and says something along the lines of "He was walking around yesterday full of life, and today he is motionless. Something was there, and now it's gone. Where did it go?". (That was taken from Joseph Campbell's Sukhavati which is on Google Video).

I often wonder how many priests wake up eventually and realise they dedicated their lives to something isn't real.

The warped idea that the modern church has of salvation, penance and suffering really arises from a misinterpretation of Christian mythology. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.". I see this more as a "definition" of God. i.e. you could read it as "God is the name of the indescribable force which created the heavens and the earth".

In fact if you exam the original hebrew of that sentence, "BERA****h" - understanding the mathemathical (and very ambiguous) nature of Hebrew it is clear that it does not refer to any anthropomorphic entity. Perhaps I'm getting out of my depth here

That being said, I have met many people who describe themselves as religious, Catholic even, who have transcended the primitive image of God as "the big bearded man" watching over us, have realised their own "divinity" for lack of a better word and describe themselves as having a personal relationship with God. I am one of those people (though not Catholic). And when I got in touch with this, the positive effect it had on my life has been unbelievable.

In reference to your quote, a friar I talked to once told me that he felt called to be one, and that if someone was training to be a friar but for the wrong reasons, "well God help him..." is all he said. We know more than any country what happens when society pressures you to become a priest (or if a priest becomes a priest to escape his homosexuality etc etc etc).

Having said that many people dedicate themselves to fiction, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars etc. It's not that different.

Absolutely. Star Wars was actually inspired by Campbell's work. Just because these things are not "historically" accurate does not mean they are "untrue", and treating them as history will cause you to overlook the value of them. Any culture's mythology contains all of the fundamental archetypes, "clues" to help you live your life.

If there is any concept of God at all, it simply the universe itself.

And the people in it

Tat Tvam Asi

bou

Zillah wrote: »

Makes sense. Primitive peoples wouldn't have had any notion about the scale of the universe or its finite nature. Very plausible scenario in which we once again see religious belief adapting (fleeing from...) scientific discoveries.

In Buddhism and Hinduism, the universe is seen as being extremely large and long lived: It arises, last for some time, and comes to an end. This have been a very large number of universes (infinitely many?).

This is a very primitive view.

nobodythere

bou wrote: »

In Buddhism and Hinduism, the universe is seen as being extremely large and long lived: It arises, last for some time, and comes to an end. This have been a very large number of universes (infinitely many?).

This is a very primitive view.

How?

Zillah

I think he was being sarcastic. Which really is something of a niche artform online.

getz

Gambler wrote: »

Every concept, I don't believe there is any higher power (inside or outside of my being), I don't believe we have a "soul", I don't believe there is a "collective unconscious" linking us all.

i believe in a god ,we just did not become, my dog believes in god i am sure that if he could, he would say;if their is no such thing as god who feeds me;

nobodythere

Zillah wrote: »

I think he was being sarcastic. Which really is something of a niche artform online.

Thanks for that there

CerebralCortex

getz wrote: »

i believe in a god ,we just did not become, my dog believes in god i am sure that if he could, he would say;if their is no such thing as god who feeds me;

You're right but it wasn't god. You're suggesting that some anthropic being is responsible? Sounds to me like you haven't thought too much about it, which of course is fine.

Flamed Diving

The concept of an intelligent entity creating the universe.

stevencarrwork

Obviously some gods exist.

If people worship sacred mountains, it is really hard to deny that the mountains exist.

SoupyNorman

I reject the fact that 'God' is used as a tool by its advocate's to pedal fear, profit, control and utter lunacy on our malleable minds.


For me, people who dedicate their lives following 'God' are cowards. Afraid to face life alone, constantly quoting Fiction where and when circumstance dictates.

bou

So, following 'God' is cowardly. Lets take as an example St Anthony who having lived a comfortable wealthy life, suddenly decided to give away all of his property and went to the remote desert to meditate. Here he wrestled with many torments - you could take them as demons or as mental delusions - and overcame them. He continued to spend most of his life in the desert. I don't think that he, or others who give up everything in search of a true way, are cowardly.

Dades

bravestarr082 wrote: »

For me, people who dedicate their lives following 'God' are cowards. Afraid to face life alone, constantly quoting Fiction where and when circumstance dictates.

A somewhat pointless generalisation, imo.

SoupyNorman

Dades wrote: »

A somewhat pointless generalisation, imo.

A somewhat pointless reply. imo.

bou wrote: »

So, following 'God' is cowardly. Lets take as an example St Anthony who having lived a comfortable wealthy life, suddenly decided to give away all of his property and went to the remote desert to meditate. Here he wrestled with many torments - you could take them as demons or as mental delusions - and overcame them. He continued to spend most of his life in the desert. I don't think that he, or others who give up everything in search of a true way, are cowardly.

No, in that instance its also Stupidity.

Goduznt Xzst

bravestarr082 wrote: »

A somewhat pointless reply. imo.

No, in that instance its also Stupidity.

/facepalm

Dades

bravestarr082 wrote: »

A somewhat pointless reply. imo.

I'd agree with that all right. Good job.

SoupyNorman

Dades wrote: »

I'd agree with that all right. Good job.

So you do agree that your reply was pointless, good job yourself.


So basically, the way it works with the self - righteous Theologians, and Atheists in here is, if someone posts a view which may be construed is a generalisation in their esteemed view gets a smarmy reply. No expansion with their reasons for why its a generalisation. I'll happily admit that I'm new in this forum and am looking to educate myself in the area by reading the threads. My first post is MY view on the topic of the thread, as an admin I would expect that you support fair and balanced arguments even if a post seems n00bish as you've been through the wars in such discussions.

If I came in here saying "There is no God, You'll all rot in the ground lol", a hostile reception would be expected.

Goduznt Xzst

bravestarr082 wrote: »

So basically, the way it works with the self - righteous Theologians, and Atheists in here is, if someone posts a view which may be construed is a generalisation in their esteemed view gets a smarmy reply.

The difference is your generalization was pointless. It's going nowhere, and it's an opinion based solely on conjecture.

I could post saying "People who believe in God smell like sardines"... equally pointless, not relevant to the thread and entirely baseless. Saying that anyone who believes in God is a coward is a prime example of a troll post, and will quickly denigrate this thread into a flame war.

Dades

bravestarr082 wrote: »

as an admin I would expect that you support fair and balanced arguments even if a post seems n00bish as you've been through the wars in such discussions.

I didn't post as an admin or a mod. I posted my opinion on your generalisation, which I felt was pointless, as are all generalisations. No-one can deny that throughout history people have done very courageous things to help other people in the name of religion. You don't need to believe in a god to admit that.

I wonder how many people who've dedicated their lives to a god you've actually called cowards to their face.

SoupyNorman

Dades wrote: »

I didn't post as an admin or a mod. I posted my opinion on your generalisation, which I felt was pointless, as are all generalisations. No-one can deny that throughout history people have done very courageous things to help other people in the name of religion. You don't need to believe in a god to admit that.

I wonder how many people who've dedicated their lives to a god you've actually called cowards to their face.

You may have felt that my post was a generalisation and pointless but I didnt, funny how we have different beliefs. Rather then just jump on me with a *rolleyes attitude you could have asked why I believe what I do. MAYBE I dont really know why and some constructive discussion could have been a healthy path to take.



I guess we'll never know.

Dades

bravestarr082 wrote: »

Rather then just jump on me with a *rolleyes attitude you could have asked why I believe what I do.

Nobody jumped on you. You made a big frickin' generalisation and got called on it. And I have NEVER used a rolleyes thank you very much!

I'm sure I know why you believe what you do - and I would agree it applies to many. You just can't possibly apply it to all.

ChocolateSauce

bravestarr082 wrote: »

I reject the fact that 'God' is used as a tool by its advocate's to pedal fear, profit, control and utter lunacy on our malleable minds.


For me, people who dedicate their lives following 'God' are cowards. Afraid to face life alone, constantly quoting Fiction where and when circumstance dictates.

One might argue that people who face life with the constant fear of ever lasting torment are very brave. If I honestly thought I'd face hell (and I've experienced it...bad trip) I'd be terrified.

I know I shouldn't make generalisations, but generally speaking, generalisations lack precision.

*captain obvious AWAY!*

:pac::pac::pac:

Zillah

bravestarr082 wrote: »

For me, people who dedicate their lives following 'God' are cowards. Afraid to face life alone, constantly quoting Fiction where and when circumstance dictates.

Alright, let's do this thing:

First of all the concept of cowardice requires a choice. One must chose a cowardly path to be a coward. Belief in God is just that, a belief. One does not choose a belief, once is merely convinced or unconvinced by one's experiences. Belief in God can no more be cowardly than belief in elves can be angry.

However, you used the word "following". I'm not sure where you're going with that, but do you mean to imply that priests and nuns are cowards for choosing that path? I think it's quite brave, if foolish of them. The idea of being committed to a life of servitude, forced to follow strange and severe restrictions is terrifying to me. That takes dedication.

Finally, they don't believe they are quoting fiction, they think they're presenting the word of God, which is really a very reasonable behaviour once you accept the premise. If I believed in God I'd quote him all the time. Also, please bear in mind that there are plenty of religious people who are intellectually consistent in their position, they don't quote as circumstances dictate, they live by the word of God regardless of what kind of temporal impact that may have.