BS: Theology question

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:13 PM

If "God" is Everything, then everything is God's comment...

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:22 PM

Oh, the "If-Thens" we can describe!

"IF wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Royston
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 08:32 PM

Stringsinger: "Kendall, in order to deal with this issue the "god" in question has to be described hopefully in detail. As I see it, all the religions describe their god a little differently. Obviously the Jewish god is different from the Islamic god and even in Islam, their notions of what a god is conflicts with one another. This is true with the Protestant and Catholic gods as well. Many have different ideas about what constitutes a "supreme being". Just capitalizing these words shed no light on any description.

I think I know what you mean. But the Abrahamic faiths have no dispute over who/what God is. All adherents are at one on this.

The dispute, if there is one, is over prophets. All three faiths are agreed - more or less - on the prophets and/or messengers up until Jesus (Isa, to Muslims) and Mohammed.

Judaism recognises neither of the last two prophets.

Christians don't recognise Mohammad.

Muslims recognise Jesus as "Rasulallah" (messenger of God) as they recognise Mohammad as "Rasuallah".

To Muslims, Jesus was born of immaculate conception, fortified with holy spirit to perform signs and miracles but was not killed on the cross; rather he was lifted up alive into heaven and will return at the end of days to fight the devil and lead the faithful into heaven.

To cut a long story really very short, Muslims believe that Mohammad was sent as the last messenger and prophet to correct misunderstandings of the Gospel of Jesus; the most important tenet of that belief being that people do not need the agency or intercession of any prophet or messenger or church, to reach God. The Trinity is a problem for Muslims who adhere to the "oneness" of God.

So, if there is any dispute, it is not about "who or what" God is; rather it is about what God would like the faithful to do in honouring and worshipping.

Most people of faith would regard that as a fairly minor quibble, particularly as all are told most sternly not to judge the other and not to presume to know God's will and judgement.

So most people of faith go about their worship in humility and hope. And if they really "get it" (the faith connection), they probably feel grateful that they found their way to some sort of understanding and that others found their own way to the same place.

Or they consider that God, in infinite wisdom, provided as many routes to the same destination as we all needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: mousethief
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 11:53 PM

We all agree on who God is, but not necessarily on what He's like.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:07 AM

Or what she's/She's like.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:44 AM

Or whether it's there at all

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:39 AM

Bill, there's nothing maybe about imagination or creative vision.

If you are proposing (which I think in a backhanded way you are) that physical space-time and its contained energy and matter must define all existence, then you are backed hard up against a core disagreement between us. The hinge-point of which, I submit, is how solidly you are identified with material things, including meat.

Viewpoints, and thought itself, are not located in space-time the way physical objects are, dassall. You can place your imagination, and your perception of it, in any time or space you wish. You can wander into the future and perceive highly probable realities, or invent improbable ones. You're working a different gridiron altogether than your dearly beloved spacetime continuum.

This has not much to do with the topic of the thread, which is various definitions of God and all that claptrap.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:57 AM

We don't all agree on who "God" is, Mousethief. You may think so, but it's probably because you've only been around sort of conventional-minded people...more or less. I would agree that there's a sort of general kind of really vague idea about what "God" is in the minds of most members of the public, and probably most churchgoers, and I think that's what you mean, but it's a very vague idea.

It presupposes some kind of fatherly divine figure who exists
"out there" in some kind of other spiritual reality, who created the world (and presumably the Universe), who exists separately from us (in the sense that we can direct prayers from us to "him" and he can respond), who is somehow all-powerful (whatever the heck that means), etc.....

I call that a very vague mental notion, and one that's a lot like a fairy tale or like the story of Santa Claus, for example. I would agree that that's the notion of "God" that's in a lot of people's heads (including atheists who object to the very idea of such a God existing...that very notion is the windmill against which they tilt!)...

But it's NOT the only idea of God that's out there! Not by far. ;-D There are a vast number of other ways of thinking about something one would choose to call "God".

It doesn't have to be male.
It doesn't have to resemble a man in any way.
It doesn't have to be "somewhere else" in some other reality.
It doesn't have to reward or punish.
It doesn't have to lay down any rules.
It could be female...or it could be genderless.
It might be everywhere...as opposed to "out there somewhere".
It might be a principle of existence, as opposed to a personal being.
It might be something no one here has any conception of whatsoever, and that no religion has even begun to succeed in describing.

There are a million possibilities outside of the primitive conventional view of the average churchgoer, and the equally primitive conventional view of the average atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:59 AM

Mousethief made the following vague statement:

We all agree on who God is, but not necessarily on what He's like.

Whom do you speak for/of when you say "we all agree"? And on what authority?

What is the difference between "who God is" and "what [s]he's like", in your statement?

Does "who God is" deal with whether he/she/it/they exist(s)?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

Amos...I repeat:

"But existence may include things that exist but are not in that frame at all..."

ahh... that sneaky word 'may'!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but it just ain't obvious to everyone that 'realms' OTHER than space-time are anything except linguistic constructs. And THAT is the hard-core disagreement between us. You just state that they are, except when the word 'may' accidentally sneaks in, while I reserve judgment¹ about it because I do not have any experience of such, and have no idea what such experience would 'feel' like or how to tell if it, in fact, IS of such a 'realm'.



1.
It really IS 'reserve judgment', no matter how often you make references to my " dearly beloved spacetime continuum." That, like 'God' in not something I can directly deny, it just part of being a consistent skeptic.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

Well, Bill, at least we have learned to shorten this fundamental dialogue to its core disagreement.

I think the essence of the matter, really, is in appreciating the viewing of the viewer, so to speak. Linguistic constructs really are not the issue; there is no question (just for example) that you experience your dreams. Or, more to the point, your visions of what a large burl might become when you have wrought your art on it. For that matter, I am pretty sure you see (in a more nuanced sense) your times tables, when you are called on to use them, and the lyrics of the songs you know whether you see them as words, or as images of the tale, or as recordings, or as something else altogether. An appreciation of the viewer and his role in what is viewed throws a lot of question into the default Newtonian version of "what Is".

I think it is well and good to maintain a skeptical approach, given the amount of horse manure for sale in the world. But there is an important line where skepticism turns on itself and becomes jade or cynicism, not conducive to clear-sightedness or well-being either. (This of course raises another interesting philosophical question fit for Socrates, as to what relationship exists between those two attributes.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: olddude
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:49 PM

All I know, is I see God, in the sky, the stars, the trees, in kids. In animals and pretty much everything else. Don't need a leader, don't need a church ... cause God is around us ... Now anyone else can see it anyway they want, big bangs cosmic accident whatever they wish and that work fine for me also ... but my opinion ... there is a plan and a purpose ... and after a near death situation, no one could ever convince me otherwise . Saw too much that was too real for both me and the docs ...

Anyway that is my take. Man distorts, man tries to place labels or doctrines on something that man cannot begin to fully understand since God is far beyond our perception of conscience ... We can only let God in or keep God out ... it is our choice and a personal one ... no one else can nor should try to force any issues. Free will, too important I think

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 02:02 PM

Near death situations often have that effect on people. And so can some other extraordinary situations. My own feeling about it is that those situations shock the human ego out of the little "room" (of consciousness) that it normally resides in and force it to look beyond itself and beyond that room, and then perceptions can change radically.

My Mother had a near death experience. Interestingly enough, in her case it didn't give her any perceptions about "God"....but she did have a very clear sense of operating independently of her body (which she could see lying in the hospital bed below her), moving up and away from there, and going down a tunnel toward some light. Before she got to that light, she felt something pulling her back toward her body. She was reluctant to re-enter the body, since she felt much better outside of it, but she did presently sink back into the body whereupon she felt very ill and weak, but with confidence that she would recover.

This experience gave her no beliefs about God at all....but did give her confidence that she will not "die" when physical death comes, but will continue to exist in some other way as a spirit being.

Interesting, isn't it? ;-) My Mother has never been interested in God or in religions (she belongs to no religion and is kind of hostile toward the whole idea of religion), but she is interested in the possibilities of life beyond death quite regardless.

In my case, I had a different kind of experience which I'm not going to go into. I will only say this: It showed me nothing about any "God", but it did show me much about strong spiritual friends and companions beyond the realm of this physical existence as we know it. And it assured me (as much as anything can) that I will not die when I "die", although my physical body most certainly will. I'll drop it like an old worn-out coat, and move on to the next thing, whatever the next thing turns out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:26 PM

For Little Hawk, because this "clicked" as I finished that last post:

Take off your old coat, and roll up your sleeves;
Death's not the last road to travel, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:07 PM

"Linguistic constructs really are not the issue; there is no question (just for example) that you experience your dreams."

Well, *grin*...of course I experience my dreams. As YOU experience yours...and everything else you experience. But that doesn't make linguistic constructs NOT an issue. It ought to be clear by now that 'the issue' is where those 'experiences' we all agree we have are located, and thus whether your notion of ^meta physical realms is accurate, or my **suspicion** they they are merely linguistic constructs. (note how carefully, as a conscientious philosophical skeptic, I do not 'deny absolutely')☺
My choice is related to the number of additional premises you need for your model, while I can 'test' mine my subjecting my "beloved meatspace" to various stresses and alter the 'experiences', and sometimes measure the changes, if not the specific content.

Ah, well....sometime we must explore what the practical differences are in daily living for each view. I have maintained for years that.... a serious belief in a personal God who cares and controls the universe affects behavior and world view in practical, operative ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 10:55 PM

"a serious belief in a personal God who cares and controls the universe"

That's a certain type of belief about God, Bill. I don't think my concept of God is much like that at all. I have no idea if there's a personal God who cares and controls the universe. The various Asian belief systems do not seem to posit that type of a God, as far as I can see. In Buddhism, for example, there is no such deity, but it's still a spiritual system and a spiritual way of looking at life.

How do spiritual beliefs affect people's actions? Well, that depends on what their spiritual beliefs are, doesn't it? And those vary enormously from one psrson to another, even within any given faith.

To find out what anyone's core beliefs are, you have to be around them for awhile and observe their actions and behaviour toward others quite carefully. You can't predict it merely on the basis of their religious affiliation, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:06 AM

I do have a belief, not in a God with a personality, or as some kind of separate entity.

I think the universe is aware and conscious, and that while I operate well enough inside this body and with these characteristics, that part of me will continue when my body dies.

Like your mother LH I've experienced some moments of awareness outside my body, for that I feel very lucky. But it hasn't transformed me in any way or made life seem better - it has just given me a different perspective.

I come from a family of athiests, strong on rationality and intolerant of self-delusion. And I respect very much where they come from, and try and be as rational as my eccentric self lets me.

But I can't take away that experience, and it was not delusion. If it was something I could trick myself into, I'd do it every day, it felt so great.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM

Steamin' Willie worships Sheffield Wednesday

Some misguided fools worship Sheffield United.

I suppose we all worship football. (assuming that is what Sheffield United are playing....)

But, like any other God, both are abstractions of mans' making. (Sheffield Wednesday in 1867, Sheffield United a few years later, Christianity about 2,000 years ago as amended, Islam a few hundred years later, Judaism ... whenever? )

My point? if you wish to have a God as such, then he / she / it is whatever you make of the concept.

But don't forget, it is YOUR God, not anybody else's and don't be too hurt if I point and laugh at your shallowness to need an imaginary friend. After all, most people laugh at my God, especially as we could yet face relegation from the championship league.

(So will Catholicism if it doesn't recover from the priests who keep buggering up, literally.)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Interesting post, freda. Just like you..."I come from a family of atheists, strong on rationality and intolerant of self-delusion. And I respect very much where they come from, and try and be as rational as my eccentric self lets me."

My parents followed no religion but rationality and conventional science, history, etc., and that was my inclination also from the youngest age. Later I developed some mystical viewpoints of my own.

Like you, I tend to think that the whole Universe is alive in some way, and that I'm a small part of a vast web of life. I think everything's alive, right down to the atomic level. That doesn't mean it's biological life in the sense that a plant or a fish is...it's life on a different energetic level from that. A plant or a fish or a human is what we term biological life, and that's a specialized form of life which is quite complex and centered in a growing but perishable biological body with a very limited lifetime. It's a temporary phenomenon. The form of life that I think exists throughout the Universe is, to my way of thinking, not a temporary phenomenon, but a permant one, and it imbues everything. I can temporarily take a biological form, but that form presently dies and the living energy that built it moves on...and will probably take other forms.

And so it goes.

That's what I think is the probable state of things. That doesn't mean I BELIEVE it. Belief indicates certainty. It means I think it is probable. There are only a few things I absolutely BELIEVE...just a very few. One of them is that I am. Another is that life is. Those 2, after all, seem pretty self-evident to me. ;-)

But I don't BELIEVE enough to belong to any religion, because I am aware of how little I know and that most of what I think is merely an assessment of probabilities...or possibilities...not a case of absolute knowledge. Without absolute knowledge one doesn't have the basis for what I would term "belief" (which is being totally certain about something).

Steamin' Willie - Yeah, sure, football could be your God. Why not? ;-) My father's gods were: success, family line, gaining other people's admiration, having material wealth, and being the most important guy in the room. My mother's gods are her house and property, family line, her material possessions, and the worship of intellectual power for its own sake. One of my god(esses) is Winona Ryder, and I have a few others, but I won't list them here...best not to reveal too much! I've never seen anyone yet who didn't worship a bunch of silly little gods of their own choosing, and in a great many cases (perhaps the majority) the god they truly worship above all others is their own intellect and their own set of opinions! That is the god they are most loyal to and most willing to serve, after all. ;-D They'll even die for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:03 PM

Bill:

Any belief elected (accurately or not) to keep confusions at bay will have a positive effect unless it leads to really destructive solutions. Belief in "the" God will make the universe seem a lot friendlier, but it can lead to some very wild aberrations in group conduct (like the Crusades and the Third Reich) when it is misused.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 12:06 PM

Perfectly stated, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:41 PM

Well, not everything you live for is god, somehow...

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 02:48 PM

It is if you worship it, Mrzzy. Specially if you do so in a really irrational and exaggerated fashion. ;-)

I mean, it's not the God....if there is one.

It's just your god, that's all...

Example: I had an uncle whose main god was his own giant ego. He was definitely the center of the world as he knew it, and always had been since birth. All others had to bow down and acknowledge his omnipotence and grandeur or be cast into the outer darkness! The silly bastard finally died, and that (I hope) put an end to his little fantasy. It certainly put an end to his little organized religion, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:06 PM

I'd respond to some of the last few, but I can't wade through that much equivocation and generalization.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM

Nor would I ask you to, Bill. I have compassion for my fellow man. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 06:12 PM

Oh, I do appreciate that...until it rises above my boot tops... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Scorpio
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM

Whatever we imagine God to be, must be a pathetic simplification. We're only human. Without any possibility of understanding, we might as well call it whatever we want, and get on with our spiritual business. For someone to claim that they know who and what the force behind the universe is is hubris.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:26 AM

That is for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 12:39 PM

An almost forgotten concept gives me a way to express how certain statements 'about' religion, belief and other forays into abstract 'realms' appear to me.

Many years ago, I found a magazine called The Evergreen Review, which had an article on 'Pataphysics. Part of the article referred to the interesting 'pataphysical definition: "God is the tangential point between zero and infinity".
So, as I remembered that while reading this thread yesterday, I did a search and came up with 'pataphor (also referred to in the above link).

Many times when someone weaves an extended metaphor of their 'personal beliefs' about reality, god, souls, multi-dimensional space...etc., I am at a loss as to how to absorb it's nuances or comment on it's relevance without it being taken as an insult or 'denial' of their beliefs...(why DO I bother? Well...if someone feels free to post their belief system in an open forum, it seems to me that reasoned comments are invited.)

So... MY reasoned comment is that *many* subjective ideas strike
me very much like 'pataphors do.... as extensions OF metaphors where the very language used becomes a vehicle for reflexive self-fulfilling hypotheses and a way to convince one's self that others are talking about the same thing.

(Yes...I know.... that paragraph is not only 'strange', but easy to dismiss as silly ramblings...*grin*. I don't expect it to change any minds, but ..read a bit in those links...perhaps it will at least reassure some that *I* am doing more than just assaulting YOUR beliefs with no explanation.)

Ain't it FUN being human and being able to talk like this? *giggle*

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:23 PM

Well, Bill, there is no constraint on language that says it cannot be used to name or describe subjective events.

The fact that such events lack the solid commonality of which we are so fond in material systems in no wise lessons their actuality. Ask anyone who has had a clear out-of-body experience (such as Little Hawk's mom) whether it was really just metaphorical and you may find your teeth being pushed down your throat in rebuttal.

There is, I am sure, a set of subjective descriptions that might be fairly universal. For example "realization" describes a subjective event that everyone has been through even though the CONTENT of the realization is about as individual as possible. SO an interesting set of statements might be possible concerning "realizations" which would be true from person to person even though no two realizations are the same. An off the cuff example: "realizations make things seem clearer". But these are not universal in the way the statement "g=9.8 meters per second squared" is universal (on earth anyway).

This is an important distinction that often escapes hard-core jaded cynics and devoted materialists, as I am sure you know, being a student of philosophy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

"...as I am sure you know, being a student of philosophy."

LOL..implying, I suppose, that disagreement would mean disavowing my own background? (Why, yes...I HAVE stopped beating my wife.)

And where is the qualification that NON "hard-core jaded cynics and devoted materialists" can also miss important distinctions?

But seriously...of course language can "be used to name or describe subjective events". We do need to communicate, and we DO have 'similar' types of subjective experiences........but although I can easily agree with the superficial import of what you say, I think YOU miss "an important distinction" that *I* try to make about the admitted basic similarity of many subjective experiences we humans share and the possible **status** of those experiences.

Just as you suggest that they 'may' have independent reality, I can easily suppose that they do not, and 'may' be merely firing of neural patterns in the brain...and quite material.
That is why we DO research...to try to figger the durn things out.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:51 PM

Like the wise CHief of the remote island nation who encountered modern pale-faced men for the first time and watched them using their cell phones to report to their headquarters, talk to their wives and children and girlfriends, report to each other where they were, and get news updates. He was amazed that so many different stories could be crammed into such a small box as the cell phone. It was obvious that's where they came from, after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:14 PM

Your analytical mind has got you in a death-grip, Bill. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

Flawed metaphor, Amos... WE know how the phones work, and with a little work, we could explain a lot of it to the chief....and a lot more to his younger children.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, LH, it's better than having a NON analytical mind with childlike gullibility get a hold of me.... ;>) ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:49 PM

The mind is not the ultimate power or authority that it thinks it is, Bill, but it does keep all of us chattering away here daily, and that keeps it happy. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM

It is not a flawed metaphor, Bill. The chief could listen to thos explanations all he wanted, but he might, for example, say "I am a skeptic" and insist his long-standing belief in animism was too well-established to be put aside by this unproven assertion about radio waves.

Granted, the metaphor only goes so far but the parallel to the present situation is truer than you would wish to admit, IMHO; specifically, a predilection to keep to a fixed and relatively bounded model is precipitating the election of a wrong source and wrong diagnosis.
Or so it seems to me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:38 PM

Yep... so it seems to you.

But, most everything about the radio waves in subject TO proof and demonstration and measurement.... the chief's animism is an example of a temporary hypothesis....kinda like a lot of other religious ones... which are quite understandable in primitive societies. He can be as stubbornly recalcitrant as he wishes, but those voices in the phone will only respond to technology, and not to magic spells....

But, of course, we wouldn't want to upset him by insisting he deal with any concept that confoozelated his cherished animism.....

And of course, you may be excused from any application of Willie of Occam's tests to your interpretation of certain aspects of reality. We try to be fair & reasonable, after all. ☺

(now...I am going out of town in the morning for 3 days to drink & make music. I suppose this a good time to suspend THIS attempt to decide what shape table we need to sit at to negotiate further... *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 02:45 PM

Wal, Bill, you-all have a good time and don't drink too much. You might end up having one of those out-of-brain experiences and confoozle yore self!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:18 PM

I think that if Bill ever dies (well, he will eventually, of course...) and it turns out that there IS an afterlife.......


....the profound shock it gives him when he finds that out will kill him AGAIN!!!! ;-D

And after that? Who knows?

As for me, I'm covered. Either there is one, and I'll be expecting it, and not shocked at all...or there isn't one, and I won't know the difference. No problemo either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:42 AM

here's an interesting bit of writing by Phillip Adams, an Australian athiest, from just last week..

The Athiest delusion

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM

My childhood experience was just the same as Phillip Adams', freda. I was also the one lone atheist among the children I knew, and my parents were about the only adults around, it seemed, who didn't believe in God and weren't going to church on Sundays (we lived in a rural area where most people were conventional Christians...in at least a superficial sense).

It was lonely being in such a small minority, but it also gave one the heady feeling that one was a lot smarter than just about everyone else...and that's very appealing to the human ego. ;-) I think it's one of the things that makes being an atheist such a pleasure...

By the time I hit my 20s I got interested in all types of philosophy and specially the philosophies embodied in major religious traditions such as the many traditions of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American religions, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc...

I saw that all of those traditions, whether they had anything to say about a "God" or not, were concerned with:

- the purpose of life
- the meaning of life
- ethics
- self-discipline
- understanding oneself and others
- dealing with relationships effectively
- dealing with strong emotions wisely
- health issues

In fact, religions and all major philosophies arise out of humans' desire to better understand and deal with every aspect of their lives.

And that is a worthy endeavour.

That's why I'm interested in religions and spirituality. I don't particularly care whether or not anyone believes in a "God" or a set of "gods". That's up to them. I don't feel any need to deny their God or their set of gods, because it isn't my business. Nor do I wish to convert them...or be converted by them.

I have no idea whether or not there is a "God" or what characteristics that God would have, assuming there was one. I'm not about to take anyone else's word on the matter. Only direct personal experience will convince me. I'm not about to deny the possible existence of a "God" either...because I have no basis for doing so...and that's where I part company with people who call themselves "atheists".

What do I believe in? I believe in life itself and I believe that I am part of it. And that others are. I believe in mathematics, gravity, and music. I believe that a confrontation between atheists and theists is a great big waste of people's time and energy, and is driven by a lot of competitive egos who can't leave other people alone in peace to just be who they are. They do not seek "the truth", they seek a petty victory of the ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: olddude
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:52 PM

God is personal, If you believe in a loving, caring God you are a better person for it. If you believe in a church or group you already missed the boat for they can lead you to a path that is not one you want to be, that is, completely opposite from my opening statement.

if you have a personal belief in God, no explanation is possible or necessary ... There is no need for anyone to try to convince others, that path they find or don't themselves. Free will is the issue. People can and should find their own path without trying to force others into a box (believers or non believers both) I would never try to "convert" another person ... to me that is one of the worst things a person should do ... Walking the walk is much harder than talking the talk ... I think ... atheist or Christian or any other religion ...
the one thing from God as anyone sees it ... is "What have you done to make this world a better place for others"   It is not the toys and how many we acquire ... it is how many hearts hold us dear that makes a difference in this life

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:52 PM

Old Dude says that a God is a personal thing. Too true, and well said.

And when somebody says my God is the one God... that's when the fur flies. Cos how can your God be the one God when my God is, actually... et ad nauseum.

Have you noticed that if you say anything on these threads that question an interventionist God, the usual crew start rattling on about you being a troll forcing your atheist views wherever you can...

Ok, there is no God in terms of the bloke with the curly beard who makes mars bars, fruit flies, mountains, love, peace, war, dodgy priests and children. But there is whatever you reckon makes everything tick, whether that be the laws of physics or an absurd judge of human actions.

Whatever turns you on. Just don't expect me to take you seriously... I am only provoking comment if I use terms like imaginary friend, and hitherto I haven't. Oh.. bugger.........

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:19 PM

Well, yeah, what some people refer to as "God"...it's what makes everything tick. Can any one of us say that he has a full understanding of what that is?

Direct personal experiences, however, convince in a way that other people's opinions on the matter (on any matter) can't touch. I'm in no position to deny or evalute someone else's direct personal experiences, and I know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 10:47 PM

The analytical mind is a powerful tool, essential for attempting to find accuracy, truth in observation. it observes within a context, a context of a personality, accumulated experience and culture.

eastern meditation practises involve practising a set of mental excercises. and those excercises assist in the process of focussing, concentrating, and eventually withdrawing from that part of the brain which usually observes, reacts, and interacts. another observing mind is underneath, and that mind is not molded by individual personality or conditioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 11:37 PM

Yes, that is correct, freda.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 12:05 AM

BErt Salzman says that the trick lies in "undefining"--meaning letting go of your autogenerated defining machinery. First, "undefining yourself". Then, "undefining the world". What remains is love without an object.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:38 AM

Yeah. ;-) That is the thing that people with busily defining minds are generally absolutely unwilling to do. It threatens their very sense of existence. They are determined to divide and separate everything from everything else. That is what makes them lonely, compulsive, hungry, and endlessly caught up in the mental process of separating things.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:12 AM

where have all the athiests gone? does silence mean consent?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM

?? what do you mean, freda? consent to what?



(as I posted above, I was off at a music weekend for 3 days. We sang ANYTHING...including one of the most amazing gospel/religious bunch of songs I can remember hearing. *I* sang along because they are powerful, beautiful songs, no matter what one's 'belief'.)