Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by rodereve, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What outlook is that? Theism or Atheism? Seems to me that nearly all civilized advancements have been achieved by secular means and nearly all civil destruction is a result of theists meddling with mankind on behalf of their "Exclusive Gods".

    I see a living Hell implied in those words...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I'd be happy with a clear definition of what is to be investigated. By definition "the unknowable" cannot be investigated. It's all very convenient.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    As I have been emphasizing over and over again: I think it comes down to one's intentions - ie. why one chooses to work with one definition of "God" as opposed to with some other one.

    One's intentions are available to one for one's inspection and judgment.

    I've already listed what I think are some of the perks of working with inferior definitions of God.

    Considering this, I don't concern myself with who or what God may truly be or not (as that concern is rendered undecidable by my focus on my intentions), but I focus my concerns on why I choose or would choose to work with one particular definition of "God" over another. So my question for me is: Is my intention for my choice of definition of "God" skillful or not?

    Some definitions of "God" are such that they fuel pride, others are such that they fuel hate, some fuel indecision -- all such are unskillful. It's generally not wise to pursue that which is unskillful.

    Again, why are you inquring about this?

    If I were to ask "How can you hope to know anything about God's terms?", I can tell you that it would be out of pride, insecurity, bad faith, jealousy toward theists. Noneof which are skillful intentions.

    Several things here:
    One, as already said, there is the issue of your intentions.
    Two, "rational" is one of the most hotly debated terms in Western philosophy.
    Three, "to have faith in someone or something" extends far beyond merely believing said thing or person exists. It also means 'to trust, to be loyal to, to value highly, to look up to.'

    It depends on how he answered those challenges.

    What is your point? That the above is proof that he really believed or that he was really religious?

    What do you mean by "believe in God"?

    To believe that God exists, the way, say, the Statue of Liberty in New York exists?

    Again, it comes down to the definition of "God" one works with.

    There are proposed defintions of "God" for which the question "Do you believe in God?" applies in the same way as the question "Do you believe that the Statue of Liberty exists?" applies. Mainstream Christianity, for example, seems to work with such definitions.

    And then there are other definitions, like the omnimax one, with which such a question does not apply.

    That is so according to your particular philosophy of mind.

    Here working from the omnimax definition:

    The existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation to the impersonal extent.
    Ie. such investigation is incomplete.
    By empirical investigation, one can know God to some extent - but not know God as God, but only as His material aspect.
    Much like by investigating, say, the muscles of Peter, you know something about the material, physical aspect of Peter; but the muscles aren't Peter, and simply from knowing Peter's muscles, you don't know Peter.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I would call this subjective judgements based on idealized moral and ethical conditions.

    OTOH, there is another way for humanists to analyze moral and ethical conditions and that is by evaluating the Potential for harm or good and then acting for the common good.

    I think I understand most theists' equivocation of God to the Wholeness for which science actually has no real definition either.
    TOE (science) = GOD (theism).

    I like the word Potential as at least a "caretaker" term for TOE and GOD as both are just too contaminated with misinterpretations and misunderstandings to serve as a commonly acceptable neutral term, a common denominator , related to all aspects of existence.
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Wynn doesn't appear to have any desire to actually discuss the topics at hand. Whenever a point is made, she simply claims the definition of given terms used are up for debate. and retreats.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And that basically ends the exploration of the rise of (different) religions in (different) regions. I believe the majority consensus was that regional variety in the basic concept of god(s) was due to a very early belief in gods expanded along with human migration from Africa and a slow growing of myth and morality stories surrounding the godlike creatures and those who communicated with them.
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    I didn't see that as the consensus, but whatever. I think the thread has long since moved past it, anyway.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps not consensus, but at least coherence....
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Why is being hurt really badly a bad thing? Is that your fucking question? Quick where's my Zen stick so I can whack you on the head with it?!
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    Odd, isn't it? With all those gods around one should think that at least a small portion of the earth would have been reserved for all thos gods not to suffer the small inconveniences of mankind.

    Did we live in heaven when the church ruled? I recall reports of hellish and terrifying practises say during the days of the Inquisition.
    A little excerpt from the Inquisitors Handbook:

    Can't sweep that under the rug. It was a direct result of Canon Law, just like all religions that have ever existed. "Obey God or die!! And that is how you establish heaven on earth?

    Modesty prevents me from using an expletive.

    Someone mentioned respect towards theist gods, because it might offend theists? Perhaps theists should start respecting atheists and not wage holy ware on us.
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    I wonder if LG finally accepts some of the points I've made ...
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    What makes you think you would know an enlightened answer when you heard one?

Share This Page