Bravely and onward we go? Tinker ...,
This is why some of us, whose notions of God have nothing to do with an invisible man in the sky and what he thinks, find atheism to be a bit ridiculous and an anti-identification. Atheists frequently, daresay constantly, invoke a specific image of God to reject. The rejection of God depends specifically on the image invoked.
Who says "God" is an invisible man in the sky who judges you?
Who says "God" wants you to know and love "him"?
Who says God is "him"?
Who says God has a "proper message" specifically?
The vein of discussion you've noted to A4Ever is much similar in this sense to the topic and posts to which I referred you.
It's all well and fine for establishing oneself as an individual, but it does nothing toward one's relations with other people.
Did you ever have a family member who went off with some strange religion and everyone got annoyed with them? Did you ever wonder why that happened, or is it just that suddenly this person wasn't worth the time of day?
It's a valid way of conducting oneself, but it doesn't lend toward any greater harmony. It measures success or happiness solely in terms of oneself, and is a similar device that leads the rich to assume that the poor must be happy. (And that's not any particular stretch, either.)
So a group of Christians is causing problems in society. Maybe it's a mere conceptual misunderstanding, but to apply the philosophy you've put down for us here means we'll never know because those people aren't worth giving the time of day.
I called it selfish, self-centered, arrogant, egocentric, and a number of other things that seem to have annoyed people.
If it's perfectly acceptable behavior to them, I wonder why they're so annoyed. I'm not going to pretend anyone is operating sympathetically if they're not.
Woo-hoo. An atheist doesn't understand it so it's not worth consideration.
Seems to me that by the same standard, atheism isn't worth the time of day. Everyone's happy enough to say it's a logical something or another, but that's like anything else. What do you do with it? What does anyone do with it? Since nobody can convincingly tell me what it is (after all, tomorrow another atheist will tell me that I'm wrong) why should I give atheism the time of day?
Perhaps because I share the planet with these and all people? Because if I decide that something isn't worth giving respect because another human being can't adequately explain it to me, well, I doubt anyone in the world would really be worth giving respect. It seems rather arbitrary to draw a line and say, alright, every idea on this side of the line needs to be explained to me in order to be worthy of my respect, and I give a free pass to every idea on the other side of the line, no matter how similar, interdependent, or otherwise intrinsically connected the ideas are.
Sounds bad, doesn't it? But where does anyone draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
I'm not about to say that atheism and atheists are not worth giving the time of day, but if I apply the standard you've put forth, what choice would I have? Pointing out this circumstance seems to annoy people. Principles seem quite fine, in general, until they are put back to the beholder in the mirror's eye.
Of late I've been considering the possibility that atheists don't know entirely what it is they're rejecting when they proactively reject God. The rejection, when limited to the atheist's inner perspective, is independent of this issue. But to look around, for instance, at the message sent from atheists to theists, I'm not entirely sure the atheists grasp the entirety of what they're attacking.
Whether or not we agree with any particular religion is almost beside the point. Almost. But far more important is what it does. It is well enough, for instance, to point out that Christianity has many failings, causes many problems, incites division, &c. But the basis upon which we call these things negative results cannot be demonstrated at this time objectively. What seems to be the issue is that such offensive behavior is fostered by the illogical conclusion that God exists and the further doctrinal accretions that come with the religion in question.
(2) Are you familiar with the Primum Mobile? A cosmological concept the result of which is a view of the Universe as finite and mechanical, with the Earth as it's center? Could Pope Leo X, for instance, have conceived of the notion of an infinite, expanding Universe, or of cosmic background radiation? Just because people could not conceive of it does not mean that it is not real. In this sense, we can look at the assertion that God is greater than that which can be conceived, and identify it as representing a specific state, condition, or event. One need not look at the statement and assume that it claims any specific god is bigger than one can conceive; so long as we focus on a god, this distracting idea will persist. Rather, we can simply say that none of what we identify about God in our holy books is anywhere close to correct. At present, I'm brushing up on an essay on Sufism that I included in a topic ages ago, and which Xev and I are undertaking at present. Part of that will deal with something along these lines. The names and conducts of gods in our holy books are secondary. In those religions exist certain ideas, largely pertaining to the relevant relationship between human beings and the mysteries of the world around them. Take away the names of God, the conduct and standards of God--for those are merely relativist (at best) accretions of the human perception--and you're left with a set of ideas, many of which are common, and some of which are geographically or culturally unique. These we can consider in their own due time, but when we set those aside for a moment, we are left with a number of pure concepts about life, people, and the Universe. Here we find the most direct riddles of God. The rest of it is distraction.
(3) It provides no proof of any specific God. It's a declaration of the God concept. It has no obligation to. It's a little bit like the closest thing to an accurate dictionary definition as you'll find for the word. It's like saying that ice is frozen water. Certes, it offers no proof of frozen water, but without the word "ice", you'd be calling it frozen water. At this point, "God" becomes a word, and merely that. And that's all it should be.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Why are you presuming that Gods B-Z require the same thing as God A?I don't see how it is. If I reject God A under a certain critirion, and God B-Z require the same tihng God A did, then why should the other religions be any more valid then the first?
This is exactly what I'm after. You're objecting to your own conception of God, and I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't. Rather, I would point out that this is all you're objecting to.And even if they are, the question begs: Why hasn't "God" made better attempts at communicating the "proper message" to the masses? If God really wants me to know him, to love him, then it would only prudent that he come down and talk to me himself.
This is why some of us, whose notions of God have nothing to do with an invisible man in the sky and what he thinks, find atheism to be a bit ridiculous and an anti-identification. Atheists frequently, daresay constantly, invoke a specific image of God to reject. The rejection of God depends specifically on the image invoked.
Who says "God" is an invisible man in the sky who judges you?
Who says "God" wants you to know and love "him"?
Who says God is "him"?
Who says God has a "proper message" specifically?
The vein of discussion you've noted to A4Ever is much similar in this sense to the topic and posts to which I referred you.
Gee, and to think that part of the reason I'm a "bur in everyone's saddle" is at least in part for pointing out this particular aspect of atheism: If your philosophy doesn't make sense, then I won't even give you the time of day.As I stated above with A4ever, Unless I should be at all inclined ( for whatever reason ) to believe or live by said paths. If I don't, then this discussion is moot. If I should, I expect to know why. If you can't provide a reason beyond " just because " then I'm not even going to give you the time of day. I just don't see why I should.
It's all well and fine for establishing oneself as an individual, but it does nothing toward one's relations with other people.
Did you ever have a family member who went off with some strange religion and everyone got annoyed with them? Did you ever wonder why that happened, or is it just that suddenly this person wasn't worth the time of day?
It's a valid way of conducting oneself, but it doesn't lend toward any greater harmony. It measures success or happiness solely in terms of oneself, and is a similar device that leads the rich to assume that the poor must be happy. (And that's not any particular stretch, either.)
So a group of Christians is causing problems in society. Maybe it's a mere conceptual misunderstanding, but to apply the philosophy you've put down for us here means we'll never know because those people aren't worth giving the time of day.
I called it selfish, self-centered, arrogant, egocentric, and a number of other things that seem to have annoyed people.
If it's perfectly acceptable behavior to them, I wonder why they're so annoyed. I'm not going to pretend anyone is operating sympathetically if they're not.
Woo-hoo. An atheist doesn't understand it so it's not worth consideration.
Seems to me that by the same standard, atheism isn't worth the time of day. Everyone's happy enough to say it's a logical something or another, but that's like anything else. What do you do with it? What does anyone do with it? Since nobody can convincingly tell me what it is (after all, tomorrow another atheist will tell me that I'm wrong) why should I give atheism the time of day?
Perhaps because I share the planet with these and all people? Because if I decide that something isn't worth giving respect because another human being can't adequately explain it to me, well, I doubt anyone in the world would really be worth giving respect. It seems rather arbitrary to draw a line and say, alright, every idea on this side of the line needs to be explained to me in order to be worthy of my respect, and I give a free pass to every idea on the other side of the line, no matter how similar, interdependent, or otherwise intrinsically connected the ideas are.
Sounds bad, doesn't it? But where does anyone draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
I'm not about to say that atheism and atheists are not worth giving the time of day, but if I apply the standard you've put forth, what choice would I have? Pointing out this circumstance seems to annoy people. Principles seem quite fine, in general, until they are put back to the beholder in the mirror's eye.
Right, and this is what I mean when I point out arbitrary starting points or "subjective objectivity". The logic which arises within the structure exists only when bolstered by the presuppositions of the philosophical paradigm.Humanism is relative, and is only made up of those who choose to associate themselves with it.
Belief is a far cry from giving a person the time of day. One need not believe another's religion in order to respect its function.The reason I follow Humanism is because it best suits my ideology(sp?) and perception. Of course, I don't mind at all different views ( Makes things interesting ). However, as I stated before, If I'm not any inclination too believe a different perpective, then I'll make my own choices as I see fit.
Of late I've been considering the possibility that atheists don't know entirely what it is they're rejecting when they proactively reject God. The rejection, when limited to the atheist's inner perspective, is independent of this issue. But to look around, for instance, at the message sent from atheists to theists, I'm not entirely sure the atheists grasp the entirety of what they're attacking.
Whether or not we agree with any particular religion is almost beside the point. Almost. But far more important is what it does. It is well enough, for instance, to point out that Christianity has many failings, causes many problems, incites division, &c. But the basis upon which we call these things negative results cannot be demonstrated at this time objectively. What seems to be the issue is that such offensive behavior is fostered by the illogical conclusion that God exists and the further doctrinal accretions that come with the religion in question.
(1) Why does it have to?I've always disgreed with this notion for several reasons.
1) It doesn't point to any specific God. Oh I'm more than willing to accept the notion that their can be a God. But which one, and why?
2) It appeals to ignorance. " Just because I can't concieve of it myself, doesn't mean it isn't real. " Hogwash reasoning. If I should follow any sort of doctrine, I demand to know why. And if I find those reasons lacking, then it will be dismissed.
3) I doesn't provide any proof, and it acually circular in reasoning.
(2) Are you familiar with the Primum Mobile? A cosmological concept the result of which is a view of the Universe as finite and mechanical, with the Earth as it's center? Could Pope Leo X, for instance, have conceived of the notion of an infinite, expanding Universe, or of cosmic background radiation? Just because people could not conceive of it does not mean that it is not real. In this sense, we can look at the assertion that God is greater than that which can be conceived, and identify it as representing a specific state, condition, or event. One need not look at the statement and assume that it claims any specific god is bigger than one can conceive; so long as we focus on a god, this distracting idea will persist. Rather, we can simply say that none of what we identify about God in our holy books is anywhere close to correct. At present, I'm brushing up on an essay on Sufism that I included in a topic ages ago, and which Xev and I are undertaking at present. Part of that will deal with something along these lines. The names and conducts of gods in our holy books are secondary. In those religions exist certain ideas, largely pertaining to the relevant relationship between human beings and the mysteries of the world around them. Take away the names of God, the conduct and standards of God--for those are merely relativist (at best) accretions of the human perception--and you're left with a set of ideas, many of which are common, and some of which are geographically or culturally unique. These we can consider in their own due time, but when we set those aside for a moment, we are left with a number of pure concepts about life, people, and the Universe. Here we find the most direct riddles of God. The rest of it is distraction.
(3) It provides no proof of any specific God. It's a declaration of the God concept. It has no obligation to. It's a little bit like the closest thing to an accurate dictionary definition as you'll find for the word. It's like saying that ice is frozen water. Certes, it offers no proof of frozen water, but without the word "ice", you'd be calling it frozen water. At this point, "God" becomes a word, and merely that. And that's all it should be.
So am I. The last thing I need right now is another skirmish.I'm glad we agree.
Just for reference ... you'll notice that, of the current people I'm a burr to, none of them thought it that disrespectful when I challenged the Christians that way. In the end, it becomes a choice between hushing yourself and saying what you think. It's all part of a seemingly self-defeating life cycle: damned if you do, damned if you don't.Hmmm. Good point. I'll have to keep that mind in posts ahead.
thanx much,
Tiassa