The Nonsense of Atheists

[phlogistician]

actually it was a statement about the absence of hardware afforded by a materialistic outlook

Makes no difference, the underlying mechanism is the same.

hence altruism and austerity are not celebrated as activities performed by a liberated person

Not true, they just understand the motivation to participate.

On the contrary, if you don't have a clue about the goal of religious principles beyond caricature, your critique of the philosophy will always be starting from a false premise

I do understand, that's your problem.

 

[Bravowon]

what on earth makes you say that?
I don't even understand how one could dictate the world's purpose through control of one's senses, much less how that dissipates the need for reciprocation, or even how reciprocation could be classified as a need based response


I agree.
the problem is however that selfishness provides a small aperture for understanding and hence a miserly quality of pleasure.

It seems what you are talking about is forsaking our shared reality in order to boost a subjective concept for the sake of amplified self gratification.

Controlling ones senses belittles their ability of perception and skews reality into whatever twisted way you can conceive. This may pay off for you but multiply that concept to a few billion people and conflict will soon arise from their need to control.
Spirituality it nothing more than mental masturbation and adhering to it's concepts (while rewarding) can degrade the true beauty that is all around us.
Defining a god from a separate objective reality is beyond your capacity unless you are claiming to be more than you evidently are. If god is part of our subjective reality then let him be defined by what is evident. I propose that you know no more about the spiritual world beyond your head than I do and claiming to have the hardware to peer into this world is a self created delusion born out of the same control mechanism you claim so virulently.

 

[rjr6]

The bible is primarily myth. And yes it's full of slavery, genocide, and vast evil such as human sacrifice, child butchery and bad manners among other things.

those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Kennyc
The bible is primarily myth. And yes it's full of slavery, genocide, and vast evil such as human sacrifice, child butchery and bad manners among other things.

duh..it was a reflection of the age..what was going on in those times communicated things..
IOW you could not use any analogies without bringing the societal conditions in it to help communicate the desired knowledge/wisdom.

we have invented more words since then...

 

[jpappl]

NMSquirrel,

there are guides to let you know if it is god or not..

Ok, can you offer examples ?

i am not trying to claim of knowledge, with the exception of what i know/believe to be true..
despite being harassed to the contrary..IE questions of 'Define'.. you are asking me to claim objective reasoning..(something that someone else can validate)

Am I harassing you by asking questions ?

The reason I am asking is because I am trying to determine from you if it's possible to believe in god without bringing in religion. I think it is, but this belief would be such that the definition is no different than what we are experiencing without the belief.

For example. God is everything. God is not a separate entity but that which represents everything that is. God is life.

However, once a separate entity is claimed or believed in then it should be able to have some definition to it.

Which, further on here you do suggest that.

“ Ok, but how do you see him ? That would be the start of defining it/him. At which point you start to create the religion, at least for yourself. ”

and ppl wonder why i get evasive when trying to define god..we don't need another religion..
i have bad attitude with 'religion'
i don't believe in religion..
i believe in god..
god is god..
religion is mans creation, and as such is susceptible to errors..

I agree that religion is man's creation. I am raising the question that god is also man's creation.

In all places, man has created god(s) to explain the unexplainable.

Is it possible that your god is no different ?

Which is why I ask for a definition. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss. It's just there. However, you have claimed that this god is something you sense and that he has some kind of interaction as he has wants.

“ What's the point in a god if it doesn't do anything ? ”

um this question really asks 'what's the point if god doesn't do anything for me'..
i believe god is doing what god needs to do..sometimes i can sense him..most of those times i don't do what he wants..(hindsight works to see this)
i have seen others who have done what he wants, and sometimes they benefit..mostly they don't..
but were not supposed to be doing it because there is a payoff when we do it..

I am not interested in what this god does for me. I am interested in what this god does period. How does he interact with you specifically ? What does it ask of you or others, what does it want ? etc etc

I realize you don't want to go down that path, because you must realize that once you do you are then creating a religion. A specific account of the hows, whats, etc of what this god is, what it wants, what it does etc etc.

“ It must do something, so how do you see this entity interacting in our lives or our world ? ”

through others..
i have seen god work through other ppl..irrelevant to what that person believes..IOW god can utilize you whether you believe or not.

How do you know it was god ?

I broke my neck in a car accident years ago. I don't credit god for saving me, because then I have to credit god for breaking my neck.

I do thank the surgeon and the medical community for being advanced enough to be able to do an incredible operation the 6th of it's kind to repair the damage. If it wasn't for technology I would have a halo on my head.

If god was involved, I had absolutely no interaction with it at any moment.

So, god could have been involved but there was nothing presented by such a being to make me believe it was in fact involved. If it was, it was all behind the scenes and so indistinquishable from what I actually experienced.

my point is that no matter how you would define yourself, it doesn't..
how you would define yourself and how your wife would define you would be two different opinions..which is true?

there is no fact in how one defines oneself..
how can we assign fact to god?

I could go on. You asked me to define myself. So I started. I could keep going and bring up more and more details and so could others about me. The point is that I can define myself, others can define me.

This is why it always comes back to faith and faith only. I don't have an issue with faith.

I do have an issue with those who claim to be able to define a god specifically, and then want the rest of us to follow along with this definition without scrutinization of the definition.

You do as well, as you said you dislike religion. My questions are to try and have you realize that you are just one step away from that.

In fact, you are really trying to avoid that and that is a good thing. Because once you start to define this god your kinda screwed. Just like you don't want others, the religious to make claims of god that don't fit with the one you believe in try to force you to accept it.

IOW, having hope and faith is one thing. Claiming to know how god works or any definitions about what he does or does not do makes you no different than someone who is religious.

On the other hand. Unless god is relegated to what I suggested above, a god that is really just all life, the universe etc and is not a separate entity then definitions should be available.

Do you see the reasoning here ?

man makes it up because too many men are asking to define god.
they wanna know exactly what/who god is before they make a decision as to believe or not..
when you do this,you try to define god according to what the religion dictates. not to what god is

They didn't define it because people like me asked. Because they realized they had to, otherwise what's the point.

I am not asking you to define god so I can determine if I should believe. I am asking any believer to define his/her god because they can't but often will still try, IOW fool themselves into believing they actually can define it.

Look at the bold in your statement above (mine). You are claiming right there that you know what god is (although no definition given) and that all of the religions are wrong. They have it wrong and you have it right. You know what god is, they don't. Do you see ?

everyone has the ability to see god..its not his fault ppl won't acknowledge it is him.

Here is an an example of what I said above. This statement is very condescending, and I don't think you realize it. If I would just open my eyes I could see the light.

It doesn't mean anything and is a more like something I would hear from a preacher.

I don't believe you mean't it that way, I could be wrong. But I just wanted to point it out as to how it comes accross to the non-believer.

“ You created this god you believe in because you are not following a god of the bible or koran right ? ”

um i have not created him..i have seen him, not by his face but by what he has done in my life..
i am not following a god of the bible or of the koran..
i have found the bible does a better job of describing what/who god is better than i can..(i am interested in what is in the quran for the same reasons)
IOW i look at what i think god has done in my life and compare it to what the bible says,if they match then there is a real good chance that i was right when i thought i saw god..

Do you see in the above that you are specifically using the bible not to find inspiration, like from any other text that may inspire you, but to strengthen your belief. Which you also claim is not the god of the bible or another religious text, but you go right there to justify it.

If the bible was written by men and as you have agreed is prone to errors. Then how do you know the supporting information that you are using to justify the belief, also written by men and prone to being in error. You are going to it because it is supposed to be text inspired by god. However, written by men.

Futhermore, these are men who are trying to define god. So what you are finding to collaborate experiences are texts written by men trying to define god. Which nobody can do, it's all speculation otherwise it's a claim of knowledge.

So now, your using a text, written by men, speculating about god, defining god and then writing it down as gospel.

"god made man in his image" "man made god in his image"

At some point you should be able to define what kind of actions it takes etc ”

he works through others..he finds ways to motivate ppl to do what is best.

Ok, so here is an attempt to define his actions.

What is your belief on where he draws the line ? For example. Does he ever hurt us, does he cause bad things to happen ? Or is he more of a guidance counselor ? Why does he hurt good people and help bad people sometimes ?

“ It could be. I guess I would know if/when I encountered it. But I would need to have enough of a signficant interaction that I could define it to some degree. ”

to prove it to someone else or to yourself?
IOW you do not need anyone to validate your beliefs for you..

To myself. But obviously for me to believe it would have to be an interaction that was undeniable. IOW, nothing else could explain in.

Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just raising a line of questioning that you may not have considered.

In these types of discussions questions are far more important than answers.

 

[Red Devil]

those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

bloody 'ell, I hope not - Godom & Gomorrah, destroyed by nukes!!!!

 

[NMSquirrel]

Ok, can you offer examples ?

the bible..the quran..others of the kind..

Am I harassing you by asking questions ?

whats harrasing is the attempt to argue out an objective/emperical definition,a one size fits all thing..i don't believe god can be defined as such. any definition limits him.

The reason I am asking is because I am trying to determine from you if it's possible to believe in god without bringing in religion. I think it is, but

most ppl go to church to 'learn' about what/who god is..the church is more than happy to teach you what he is about..the stuff they teach tends to be more control oriented..IOW they have other things they can teach, but all their attention is on getting ppl to 'join' them and how to keep them tithing.

this belief would be such that the definition is no different than what we are experiencing without the belief.

this is true..
the god one experiences outside of religion, has to be the same as the one inside of religion..

but if you go inside a religion to find god..how does one sort out all the personal opinions as to who/what god is?
sometime it can be helpfull with the right person, but mostly its just like sciforums..ppl are just looking to validate their own opinions..
so i am not saying god is not in the different religions..he is..
but we gotta come to terms with our own humanity to discern what is god and what is not..
we can't do that until we acknowledge, we are fallible..we make mistakes..


others have found god without a church to teach them..i think these types are closer to understanding what god is about, than any church goers..(there are exceptions, far and few)

i am sure in birch's history there has been at least one person that he thought wasn't faking it..( when there is one, there must be more.)

For example. God is everything. God is not a separate entity but that which represents everything that is. God is life.

i will agree with that..

However, once a separate entity is claimed or believed in then it should be able to have some definition to it.

im not claiming separate..

I agree that religion is man's creation. I am raising the question that god is also man's creation.

this is getting to the argument..
If your living like there is no God,you better be right..

Which is why I ask for a definition.

i will take this opportunity to thank you for your questions,the Right questions always helps to increase understanding.

I am not interested in what this god does for me. I am interested in what this god does period. How does he interact with you specifically ? What does it ask of you or others, what does it want ? etc etc

i don't know what is asked of others..i can only speculate..same with want..

it hard to describe..the closest i can come to describing it is:
god puts it into your heart to do something..most times it is something you do not want to do..when you do it, you discover it wasn't such a bad thing..
Don't devalue this by claiming it as something else, there is more to it than i could ever describe..

I realize you don't want to go down that path, because you must realize that once you do you are then creating a religion. A specific account of the hows, whats, etc of what this god is, what it wants, what it does etc etc.

specifics opens it it up to someone claiming 'god did not do this, so he doesn't exist'..this is how religion has screwed god up..

How do you know it was god ?

i don't know..i believe..

I broke my neck in a car accident years ago. I don't credit god for saving me, because then I have to credit god for breaking my neck.

too speculative for me to respond too..
with the exception of;
knowledge/wisdom doesn't always come pain free..
(bet you drive more cautiously now.)

I do thank the surgeon and the medical community for being advanced enough to be able to do an incredible operation the 6th of it's kind to repair the damage. If it wasn't for technology I would have a halo on my head.

halo's are a myth..but point taken..
see this would reinforce my beliefs..there are many times during that experience you had the opportunity to die..but did not..what else did you come away with that you would not have if that did not happen?

If god was involved, I had absolutely no interaction with it at any moment.

he tends to be more subtle than that..you can only see him if you are looking for him in the right place..

So, god could have been involved but there was nothing presented by such a being to make me believe it was in fact involved.

most non-believers want him to literally come slap them in the face,

If it was, it was all behind the scenes and so indistinquishable from what I actually experienced.

i still think if god was like that..(no doubt that it was him,IE physical evidence,objective proofs etc) then we as a species would be acting like we were in a dictatorship IOW it would change the nature of what we are supposed to be about..

I could go on. You asked me to define myself. So I started. I could keep going and bring up more and more details and so could others about me. The point is that I can define myself, others can define me.

and those definitions are susceptible to argument was my point..
same with god.

This is why it always comes back to faith and faith only. I don't have an issue with faith.

faith is not a bad thing..

I do have an issue with those who claim to be able to define a god specifically, and

then want the rest of us to follow along

with this definition without scrutinization of the definition.

if everyone was following God,there would be no need to follow some MAN who claims knowledge..IOW there would be no need for anyone to tell you what god wants you to do..only you know that.

You do as well, as you said you dislike religion. My questions are to try and have you realize that you are just one step away from that.

i understand there IS a fine line on this..
where does god stop and religion begin?

In fact, you are really trying to avoid that and that is a good thing. Because once you start to define this god your kinda screwed. Just like you don't want others, the religious to make claims of god that don't fit with the one you believe in try to force you to accept it.

(see above comments)
i am not trying to force my beliefs on others, if my beliefs are true then they will attend to themselves..
if i try to force my beliefs on others then how can i know if they are true?

IOW, having hope and faith is one thing. Claiming to know how god works or any definitions about what he does or does not do makes you no different than someone who is religious.

claiming to know how god works for me is justifiable..
claiming to know how god works for others is pure speculation. and the start of religion.

On the other hand. Unless god is relegated to what I suggested above, a god that is really just all life, the universe etc and is not a separate entity then definitions should be available.

see..god is more than that..
unless god is...<definition> then definitions should be available..
see how i read that?

Do you see the reasoning here ?

i see a person who wants it spelled out so they don't have to take responsibility if they are wrong.
(no offense intended)

They didn't define it because people like me asked. Because they realized they had to, otherwise what's the point.

would you follow a spiritual leader who says 'i don't know, figure it out for yourself!'
they turn to those Men for answers and are REQUIRED to give an answer by the asker..
when the verse 'seek and ye shall find' comes to bear it is talking about seeking god not man..man can help to understand god, but they are not supposed to dictate what god is.

not to what god is

Look at the bold (mine). You are claiming right there that you know what god is (although no definition given) and that all of the religions are wrong. They have it wrong and you have it right. You know what god is, they don't. Do you see ?

there is the communication gap..
i haven't claimed i am right or i am wrong..
i have only claimed what i see..
(other comments above)

everyone has the ability to see god..its not his fault ppl won't acknowledge it is him.

Here is an an example of what I said above. This statement is very condescending, and I don't think you realize it. If I would just open my eyes I could see the light

.
its not meant as condescending..
AND
it brings up the question of a god who is our slave..IOW we don't want him to hurt us in any way..so if we get hurt it is not god?? or if god doesn't give us what we want, then there is no god?
AND
it puts your emotional state of being more of a priority than understanding.
AND
there are many parables in the bible which uses that metaphor,
its not as simple as it sounds..

It doesn't mean anything and is a more like something I would hear from a preacher.

yes..but one can't talk about god without bringing some religious vocabulary into it..(i try..its not that easy..)

I don't believe you mean't it that way, I could be wrong. But I just wanted to point it out as to how it comes accross to the non-believer.

it is the struggle with our own worth that gets in the way of seeing god..
IE..most ppl start to feel worthless and they can't think of anything else but how worthless they feel,they do anything to not feel that..their focus is not on god but how they are feeling..

Do you see in the above that you are specifically using the bible not to find inspiration, like from any other text that may inspire you, but to strengthen your belief. Which you also claim is not the god of the bible or another religious text, but you go right there to justify it.

If the bible was written by men and as you have agreed is prone to errors. Then how do you know the supporting information that you are using to justify the belief, also written by men and prone to being in error. You are going to it because it is supposed to be text inspired by god. However, written by men.

Futhermore, these are men who are trying to define god. So what you are finding to collaborate experiences are texts written by men trying to define god. Which nobody can do, it's all speculation otherwise it's a claim of knowledge.

So now, your using a text, written by men, speculating about god, defining god and then writing it down as gospel.

"god made man in his image" "man made god in his image"

was this meant to be as confusing as it reads?
i never claimed it was simple..i could sum it up in three words, but each word is VERY subjective..IE God is Love..
VERY open to misinterpretation and argument.

Does he ever hurt us,
does he cause bad things to happen ?
Or is he more of a guidance counselor ?

yes
yes
and yes..

Why does he hurt good people and help bad people sometimes ?

because bad ppl don't learn from that pain..?
(speculation)
or is there some science to back that statement up? (prison research?)

Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just raising a line of questioning that you may not have considered.

alot of those answers from me are only speculation, i do not claim to be right or wrong..i believe them to be right cause i feel god reinforcing those beliefs through other means.
if i were to sum up those speculations it would end up being..'think for yourself' NOT 'do as your told'

 

[AlexG]

those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Yes, but there it is written down in the most widely published and read book in all of humankind, and people still repeat it.

 

[jpappl]

NM Squirrel.

“ For example. God is everything. God is not a separate entity but that which represents everything that is. God is life. ”

i will agree with that..

“ However, once a separate entity is claimed or believed in then it should be able to have some definition to it. ”

im not claiming separate..

But many of your statements are that it is a separate entity.

for example:

"this is getting to the argument..
If your living like there is no God,you better be right.."

"god puts it into your heart to do something..most times it is something you do not want to do..when you do it, you discover it wasn't such a bad thing.."

"Don't devalue this by claiming it as something else, there is more to it than i could ever describe.."

"he tends to be more subtle than that..you can only see him if you are looking for him in the right place.."

These are all statements of a separate entity. Something outside of us that can exercise some control or influence.

The first statement is basically saying that if I don't believe and there is a hell, then I am going to hell. IOW, an entity decides what to do with my soul.

I am suggesting as I will explain again below, and which is the main part of my argument, that unless this god is just life, no control, no separate entity, no reason to interact with us. Then it can be defined. But it can't, unless you want to claim that it has personally interacted with you, if so then define away.

So if it is just life or as you say God is love. Then it's just really a part of us, and if that is the case, then we are each our own god. We make the decisions.

“ IOW, having hope and faith is one thing. Claiming to know how god works or any definitions about what he does or does not do makes you no different than someone who is religious. ”

claiming to know how god works for me is justifiable..
claiming to know how god works for others is pure speculation. and the start of religion.

Sure, because you have faith, you don't need to justify that to anyone else.

“ Do you see the reasoning here ? ”

i see a person who wants it spelled out so they don't have to take responsibility if they are wrong.
(no offense intended)

No, I am asking questions and have of others who really in the end don't know what they are believing in. They just have faith. Which is what they end up realizing is all there is to it.

They want to make it something more, something that should have meaning to others but it doesn't. There is no justification for the belief for others. It's much easier to fool oneself into believing they have such knowledge then to fool others.

That is why when pressed and the belief is scrutinized, they fall back on faith. Which is why I have no problem with faith. Your entitled to believe in anything, but if you want to discuss the subject further then expect to have your beliefs scrutinized.

Having faith and hope isn't making a claim about anything specific.

See below, I will try to better organize the thought in a simple manner. This is not to suggest that you can not understand something more complex, just that I offered a longer version over the last few days, maybe it's better to start with the short and then look back and the long.

“ Do you see in the above that you are specifically using the bible not to find inspiration, like from any other text that may inspire you, but to strengthen your belief. Which you also claim is not the god of the bible or another religious text, but you go right there to justify it.

If the bible was written by men and as you have agreed is prone to errors. Then how do you know the supporting information that you are using to justify the belief, also written by men and prone to being in error. You are going to it because it is supposed to be text inspired by god. However, written by men.

Futhermore, these are men who are trying to define god. So what you are finding to collaborate experiences are texts written by men trying to define god. Which nobody can do, it's all speculation otherwise it's a claim of knowledge.

So now, your using a text, written by men, speculating about god, defining god and then writing it down as gospel.

"god made man in his image" "man made god in his image" ”

was this meant to be as confusing as it reads?
i never claimed it was simple..i could sum it up in three words, but each word is VERY subjective..IE God is Love..
VERY open to misinterpretation and argument.

1) Man can not define god. It can only be speculation. Any attempt to define creates religion. So it is not possible to define a separate entity god without creating a religion.

2) If god is just life, everything that is and is not a separate entity, then no definition is needed. However, there is no separate entity to interact with. It is everything and all things and such that we are acting in it's place, so are all animals and everything all the way down the line. God is inseparable from reality, it is in us and everything that is and nothing more.

3) These two concepts on god can not simultaneuosly exist.

Either it is a separate entity with or without some control and interaction or it is not.

Once you claim that it has some kind of interaction then definitions can be requested. Which is the reason for the texts.

Yet, god can not be defined.

So the texts are nothing but man's creation, his speculation on what god is.

Do you see the problem ?

Another even shorter version.

1) god is a separate entity (can be in some control, all control or no control)
2) god is everything and thus not separate (no control, no interaction)
3) no god

"man made god in his image" Is my contention. It makes the most sense.

Whether there is a god or not, all of our versions of god(s) are wrong. Because there is no way for anyone to actually define a god.

This you have answered yourself. You can have faith, but never knowledge.

 

[rjr6]

Excellent answer. I could not understand the poster who compared it with materialistic slavery. Beyond comprehension!!

The fact that we abort babies, enslave other countries youth and war against other nations that are oil rich to allow us to be enslaved materially is beyond comprehension as to be compared to being in chains? to mention a few atrocities that are maintained for material wealth or a way of life.

 

[NMSquirrel]

1) god is a separate entity (can be in some control, all control or no control)
2) god is everything and thus not separate (no control, no interaction)
3) no god

why can't 1 and 2 exist together?
when i have referenced 'seperate entity' i was refering to the references of their being more than one god(your god,which god,etc)..not the definition you have just put forth..
seperate from ourselves..i just got that..you are saying god is either in us or outside of us..(?)

"man made god in his image" Is my contention. It makes the most sense.

there is truth to that..but i think it would be more accurate to say man has interpreted god by his own experiences..i mean we can only define something by the available vocabulary we have at our disposal...because each of us is guilty of 'flavoring' god to our own likeing ,does not negate him..(it may devalue him,but not negate)

Whether there is a god or not, all of our versions of god(s) are wrong. Because there is no way for anyone to actually define a god.

because there is no way for anyone to actually define a god,does not mean everyone is wrong..same as it means not every one is right..
the closest science analogy i have to compare it to is shroedingers cat..to measure it, changes the nature of what it is..
to define god, changes the nature of who he is..

This you have answered yourself. You can have faith, but never knowledge.(when it comes to god)

i have faith that what i think of as god, is god..
i will not know until i die..
as long as i don't use god to do bad things (IE take responsibility for my own actions..IOW 'because god said so' is not an excuse),i should be respected,not stereotyped with all those who have done bad in gods name..

* disclaimer..the terms who,he,him does not necessarily mean i believe god has a human like image, it is just a way to communicate..

i say this with the thoughts of believing if god were to be found in science it is possible it would be found in a collective consciousness,(not trying to say this is true,but i would believe it..)

 

[Red Devil]

Abortion is another topic, but its murder.

 

[Sarkus]

In your view, at least.

 

[spidergoat]

Abortion is another topic, but its murder.

Is meat also murder?

 

[Kennyc]

Is meat also murder?

And eggs, don't forget the eggs.

 

[spidergoat]

They aren't fertilized.

 

[Kennyc]

Maybe it's only 1/2 murder then.....chickenslaughter....

 

[jpappl]

NMSquirrel,

why can't 1 and 2 exist together?

Because one is the claim that it interacts with us in some way. It must be outside of us, and all of us. Interacting as needed. A separate entity whether it occupies us at times or not. Otherwise we are all acting as gods, all the time.

The other is simply claiming that god is within everything and thus everything that we and everything else is. This is about as close to believing in god as I get, because I don't need to create or add a separate entity for it to fit. This definition is perfectly acceptable because there is no additional definition that is needed. Since we can not define a separate entity god. This works. But also note that if this is the belief, then there is no need to call it god either.

seperate from ourselves..i just got that..you are saying god is either in us or outside of us..(?)

Correct

“ "man made god in his image" Is my contention. It makes the most sense. ”

there is truth to that..but i think it would be more accurate to say man has interpreted god by his own experiences..i mean we can only define something by the available vocabulary we have at our disposal...because each of us is guilty of 'flavoring' god to our own likeing ,does not negate him..(it may devalue him,but not negate)

You're saying the same thing as I am here. Man created god in his image, based on his experiences, based on what he knows.

And this is the main point. He is limited to what he knows or could conceive.

This is why man has created gods that either resemble themselves or resemble animals etc that he knows of. This has been done over and over again in all places.

This is why the most likely scenario is that man created god, definitions and all based on what he knows.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO GOD. I capitalize that because I want to be clear on my position.

Just that man can not know this god, at least not yet (when we die) and maybe never (there is no afterlife or you are reincarnated into something else with no memory)

“ Whether there is a god or not, all of our versions of god(s) are wrong. Because there is no way for anyone to actually define a god. ”

because there is no way for anyone to actually define a god,does not mean everyone is wrong..same as it means not every one is right..

Everything is possible, but what are the chances that any one definition is right ? Considering the possibilities.

This you have answered yourself. You can have faith, but never knowledge.(when it comes to god) ”

i have faith that what i think of as god, is god..

And that is good enough, correct ?

as long as i don't use god to do bad things (IE take responsibility for my own actions..IOW 'because god said so' is not an excuse),i should be respected,not stereotyped with all those who have done bad in gods name..

Yes, I agree.

* disclaimer..the terms who,he,him does not necessarily mean i believe god has a human like image, it is just a way to communicate..

Thanks for the clarification. Which is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you really scrutinize these definitions.

We find ourselves saying "he" then we realize, wait a minute, how can I know that ?

So you are going down the correct path IMO. For practical reasons we can use he or it or she or whatever.

i say this with the thoughts of believing if god were to be found in science it is possible it would be found in a collective consciousness,(not trying to say this is true,but i would believe it..)

It's possible. This is why I was so adamant about discussing the idea that man could know and define it. Which when you think about how much emphasis has been put on all of the various religions idea of god it becomes somewhat laughable when you realize that it can not in fact be defined.

This is why those who understand this want to claim the texts are the word of god. Because if they are not, then man is defining things. The chances of him getting it right are so miniscule that it's best left to each his own to have his own idea and have faith and faith only.

Otherwise your following somebody off a cliff. They have no clue and neither does anyone else when it comes to a definition.

Some figured out a way to make money off of it though. They are all charlatans whether they realize it or not. Some may truly believe, some may just be lying through their teeth, but none of them can actually define god.

Simply said, on the subject of god, you can have faith but never knowledge, and those who claim any knowledge are lying or fooling themselves into believing they know something they don't.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Because one is the claim that it interacts with us in some way. It must be outside of us, and all of us. Interacting as needed. A separate entity whether it occupies us at times or not. Otherwise we are all acting as gods, all the time.

not all, but some..

The other is simply claiming that god is within everything and thus everything that we and everything else is. This is about as close to believing in god as I get, because I don't need to create or add a separate entity for it to fit. This definition is perfectly acceptable because there is no additional definition that is needed. Since we can not define a separate entity god. This works. But also note that if this is the belief, then there is no need to call it god either.

call him puff..
so one says he can either be in us or not..
the other says he can only be internal..

Just that man can not know this god, at least not yet (when we die) and maybe never (there is no afterlife or you are reincarnated into something else with no memory)

i believe god has a sense of humor..if i was reincarnated, i was pry a squirrel in my previous life..:shrug:

Everything is possible, but what are the chances that any one definition is right ? Considering the possibilities.

consider the possibility if there was some truth in each of those definitions..

So you are going down the correct path IMO. For practical reasons we can use he or it or she or whatever.

or at least not get distracted by the argument of whether god is a he or she..

It's possible. This is why I was so adamant about discussing the idea that man could know and define it. Which when you think about how much emphasis has been put on all of the various religions idea of god it becomes somewhat laughable when you realize that it can not in fact be defined.

i maintain we must not dismiss those definitions as they are a clues as to who/what god is..

This is why those who understand this want to claim the texts are the word of god. Because if they are not, then man is defining things. The chances of him getting it right are so miniscule that it's best left to each his own to have his own idea and have faith and faith only.

man wrote the bible..man is fallible..this doesn't mean the bible is wrong..it is an attempt to define god..it was scrutinized by man to attempt some semblance of accuracy, there are alot of clues in the bible that point to who/what god is..
again it comes down to not getting distracted by invalid definitions, but more of a trying to discern what is trying to be communicated..

Otherwise your following somebody off a cliff. They have no clue and neither does anyone else when it comes to a definition.

i wouldn't say 'no clue' but i would say they just have a clue..
(they didn't get the clue to turn left before the edge of the cliff)
which is why i agree with you when you say it is not good to follow ONE mans (or religions) definition..

Some figured out a way to make money off of it though. They are all charlatans whether they realize it or not. Some may truly believe, some may just be lying through their teeth, but none of them can actually define god.

between this and the last comment is ALOT of my attitude about religion..
its either about themselves or about the money..neither is what god wants..
(FYI its easier to figure out what he doesn't want, than what he wants)

Simply said, on the subject of god, you can have faith but never knowledge, and those who claim any knowledge are lying or fooling themselves into believing they know something they don't.

i would agree only in the extreme cases..others (the ones i respect more)
just put forth their opinion and let me decide for myself whether it is true or not..

 

[jpappl]

NMSquirrel,

consider the possibility if there was some truth in each of those definitions..

How do we determine what is truth or not ? We can't so the definitions are mute. They are made up by man.

maintain we must not dismiss those definitions as they are a clues as to who/what god is..

How can they be clues ? They can't define god nor can they offer clues to what or who god is because they do not know. Nobody does.

man wrote the bible..man is fallible..this doesn't mean the bible is wrong..it is an attempt to define god..it was scrutinized by man to attempt some semblance of accuracy, there are alot of clues in the bible that point to who/what god is..
again it comes down to not getting distracted by invalid definitions, but more of a trying to discern what is trying to be communicated..

An attempt to define god by what he knows and that's it. He has no knowledge and thus can not define god. It would be like me asking you 3000 years ago what a computer was and left it at that.

Instead of saying I don't know, you try to answer. You won't be able to define it.

This is the same thing. Man could not and can not define god, but they went ahead and did it anyway and now billions are following along.

Which is why a question like: why is slavery condoned in the bible a valid question. Would a god condone slavery ?

Not one I would want to worship.

i wouldn't say 'no clue' but i would say they just have a clue..
(they didn't get the clue to turn left before the edge of the cliff)
which is why i agree with you when you say it is not good to follow ONE mans (or religions) definition..

Well your not going far enough. In all of the above, you are again making claims that god can be defined.

Defined by who ? Humans. Who can't define this god. Yet you continue to give legitimacy to others claims of being able to define god.

I think that you have it right when you say that you have your belief about what or who god is. You have faith.

But it has to be left at that. I know it is difficult to accept that and it in a sense leaves you out in no mans land on the subject.

Others, who follow a religion can not accept that. Which is why they want all these others to believe in one way, the way they believe, it gives them comfort and strengthens the belief. It gives legitimacy to the belief and it starts to sound like knowledge to them.

Yet, all they have done is accept someone else's definition and run with it. This is when the term sheep comes in. Just blindly following.

Even though you are wise to avoid religion, you still want to offer legitimacy to it by making statements that their definitions still have value. They don't.

Avoid the texts and think for yourself, which is what you are doing for the most part anyway. Just IMO need to let go of the extra baggage.

Believe in your god, without the religion and you won't find any contradictions. Throw religion in there and it all goes out the window. Then the definitions can be scrutinized and they don't hold water.

“ So you are going down the correct path IMO. For practical reasons we can use he or it or she or whatever. ”

or at least not get distracted by the argument of whether god is a he or she..

Yes, it's irrelevant.

Some figured out a way to make money off of it though. They are all charlatans whether they realize it or not. Some may truly believe, some may just be lying through their teeth, but none of them can actually define god. ”

between this and the last comment is ALOT of my attitude about religion..
its either about themselves or about the money..neither is what god wants..
(FYI its easier to figure out what he doesn't want, than what he wants)

Well again we don't know what god wants. Bold is mine.

So we can't figure out what it wants or doesn't want.

This again is where you and your personal beliefs come in. They are fine for you and how you believe god to be but that's it. You can't define god for others, you can't lay out a definition of god that any possible equation will be able to determine the likelihood of being correct.

That is why statements like.

That is not how god works or that is not what god wants etc etc are claims of knowledge. By saying such, you are claiming to know how god works etc.

Does that make sense ?

“ Simply said, on the subject of god, you can have faith but never knowledge, and those who claim any knowledge are lying or fooling themselves into believing they know something they don't. ”

i would agree only in the extreme cases..others (the ones i respect more)
just put forth their opinion and let me decide for myself whether it is true or not..

This is different. You and say a good friend can speculate all day long about god. But as soon as you start to claim you know how it works or doesn't work, see some of your comments above. You are essentially claiming to know.

I know it may seem like I am being tough on you. I wouldn't bother if I felt you were not open minded enough to at least consider what I am suggesting.

I am really scrutinizing the comments. Because this is how we uncover the fine line between opinions on the subject and claims of knowledge.

Opinions on what, who, why etc for god is one thing. Trying to define the god is another. Once you go there your making a claim of knowledge, this is how religions start.

The god is defined, others believe the definitions and so on. Even though the original definitions were faulty because man doesn't have this knowledge.

In short, I am suggesting that you become a theist/agnostic. Which you believe you are, but not quite all the way there because you still want to give some legitimacy to the texts and others definitions or clues. When they can not know.

Do you believe ? Yes,
Do you know ? No

And anybody who makes claims to know has no more knowledge than you or I.

All religions are man made, not works of god.