Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To use a very common example, I am also agnostic about Santa Claus. I cannot prove and don't have absolute knowledge that he does not fly around the world, that he does not drop through chimneys, or that he plainly does not exist. That being said, in practice I think it is a bit ridiculous to preface every mention of Santa with a statement on the limits of knowledge. Thus, I freely say Santa doesn't exist and in the same sense neither does God (or gods).
NoCapo,
I REALLY appreciate your respectful way of discussing this. It's helpful because I don't feel defensive and can actually discuss the issue without adhominem attacks.
God is Love... the energy of life! God is that unmeasurable energy (maybe the dark energy/matter throughout the universe). I won't pretend to completely understand it all. But based on my perspective now, I see that God is likely not limited as traditional scripture dictates. God is everything - LIFE! God is that motivational energy within us to keep going! Santa Claus or a grandpa in the sky may be illogical and thus many won't be able to resonate with that. But if you do resonate... you resonate! You feel it! You feel that motivating, inspiring energy. It doesn't matter if the thought you're thinking of is real or not, if it inspires REAL influence.
Still, our beliefs are most functional when best balanced by reason (logic) and intuition (passion).
Quote:
This is something about which I would like to have a more in depth discussion with you. Let me know if this is something you think I should start a new topic for.
I'd love it! I've tried starting threads similarly (defining God)... but I think it is such an important topic that deserves to be covered thoroughly.
Quote:
It seems to me that defining God in this way works just fine for personal devotion, but it leads to problems when interacting with others. It leads to two people thinking they are communicating when they both mean something very different. For example, if I define God as the best life for the most number of people, and someone else defines God as a being who demands worship and prohibits specific behavior, we can both agree that our nation should be guided by God, but mean totally opposite things.
Can you help me understand why it is useful to define God as something other than transcendent being? It seems to me that if you don't mean some supernatural entity you can dispense with the use of God. If my ultimate concern is provable truth, or the well being of my fellow man, or my own pleasure, I can just use those terms without labeling them as God.
In addition the idea of God as "Ultimate Concern" seems like it is inapplicable in many cases. I personally don't believe that I have an "Ultimate Concern". There is no overriding issue or principle that dominates my life. Instead, I have a wide range of concerns, lots of disparate things that are all important to me. None of these things do I feel deserve to be treated as my God. In essence, even if I try to define God in the way you suggest, I still wind up an Atheist.
I had a conversation on the A&A forum a while back with someone who felt like he was able to relate better to theists if he redefined God in a way that made sense to him, solely so he could talk about God with theists. This seems like a way of trying to plaster over the differences, and placate those who can't accept that other people are different. It just doesn't seem like a very honest way to communicate.
Anyway, I find the topic fascinating, even if it doesn't make much sense to me.
NoCapo
Good point... peoples' definition of "ultimate concern" can still conflict. What is needed is education in realizing the deeper meaning... When we love or hate, it is our "ultimate concern" and we cannot help but love or hate ourselves by feeling it within us.
I understand that there will be misunderstandings... but what's new?
What is better? To define the god of war (of the Old Testament) as the god of the world... Or to define the god of Ultimate concern as comparing the questions, "What is most important to you based on what you think, feel and do?" & "What will help you and those around you most?"
I can relate with not communicating honestly... but it's more SANE! I am surrounded by a cult I was raised with. I can't leave without tearing up my family and losing a lot... so I don't leave. I've learned to redefine terms, so that my blood doesn't boil when I'm preached to. I realize it's good to try to help others see other perspectives, but I can't change anyone & they won't change their perspective a second before they're ready. So until then, I redefine gospel terms so I can resonate with what I'm dealt...
IE:
Sin: Incorrect thoughts that lead to harmful feelings and behavior
Repentance: Correcting thoughts which will correct feelings and behavior (& often health too!... "ease" not "dis-ease")
Commandments: All must be based on "Love others AND ourselves"
Jesus: Model (not god) to spiritually deeper consciousness
Kingdom of God/God: How we resonate & are motivated within (Luke 17:21)
Love: Appreciation, hoping and striving for what's best, through trial & error (active faith)
Satan/Adversary: Unhealed part of us
Salvation: When we've healed ourselves and help others heal
Not all atheists are also agnostics, but most are. The same skepticism which informs our lack of belief in a god also works against being absolutely certain that there is no god. When I am asked, I usually respond that I am an agnostic atheist. The burden of proof lies upon the believer.
No atheists that I know of consider themselves "all-knowing". That is absurd; no one can know everything. If you mean only in terms of god/no god, most of us leave that certainty to the theists. But belief is not proof. If "faith" is required, it means that there is no proof.
Ok, I get that... so why even use the term Atheists, which doesn't believe in God, denies god 100%?
Also... Catman, Who/What is God that you are needing proof of?
...I doubt there are many gnostic atheists..I know they exist but I have never come across any..and yes they would be ironic since they are making an absolute statement just like the theists are.
Thank you for understanding.
How did they come up with the term, "gnostic"?
I find that term really interesting in relation to atheism because it is theorized that the origins of Christianity are Gnostic.
As a Theist, this is what I believe; one life has already paied for all the death senerios that exist in humanity; because of Christ death, now all have future life with God, effectively rendering past, present and future human deaths meaningless. How people die, where they died, the horror involved in their deaths, how many were killed, all has been rendered meaningless in my belief- so when people try to dramatise and give meanings to deaths in an effort to belittle religious intentions, it means little to me BECAUSE I already know that those killed or passed on will live again.
How did they come up with the term, "gnostic"?
I find that term really interesting in relation to atheism because it is theorized that the origins of Christianity are Gnostic.
They really are not related. The Gnostic sect of Christianity was a sort of mystery religion variation of Christianity, wherein some divine inner knowledge or "Gnosis" is the means of salvation. It was treated as a heresy and mostly stamped out in the early centuries of the church.
The term gnostic is from the Greek for "learned" and connotes having knowledge. Agnostic basically means "without knowledge". The term Agnostic means that you don't claim knowledge that you cannot demonstrate. Gnostic, in this sense, means that you do claim knowledge, even if you cannot demonstrate or prove it.
The only real link is the definition of the word gnosis - "knowledge"
NoCapo,
I REALLY appreciate your respectful way of discussing this. It's helpful because I don't feel defensive and can actually discuss the issue without adhominem attacks.
Thanks, I just feel it is a lot more conducive to understanding than just snarking back and forth. Makes me feel all civilized, and stuff...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
God is Love... the energy of life! God is that unmeasurable energy (maybe the dark energy/matter throughout the universe). I won't pretend to completely understand it all. But based on my perspective now, I see that God is likely not limited as traditional scripture dictates. God is everything - LIFE! God is that motivational energy within us to keep going! Santa Claus or a grandpa in the sky may be illogical and thus many won't be able to resonate with that. But if you do resonate... you resonate! You feel it! You feel that motivating, inspiring energy. It doesn't matter if the thought you're thinking of is real or not, if it inspires REAL influence.
I think that as a personal belief that is fine. I personally don't want to label any of those things as god, because I don't think it helps me do anything. I mean, why can't love be love, energy be energy, and life be life? Why label any of those things as god(s)? The way I see it, anything I experience, know, or understand clearly enough to label doesn't need to be labeled God to have an effect on my life. Anything that I cannot understand well enough to at least name, doesn't deserve to be labeled God, and can just be resolved with, "I don't know". I just personally don't understand why it be personally useful to label something non transcendent, non-supernatural in that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Good point... peoples' definition of "ultimate concern" can still conflict. What is needed is education in realizing the deeper meaning... When we love or hate, it is our "ultimate concern" and we cannot help but love or hate ourselves by feeling it within us.
I understand that there will be misunderstandings... but what's new?
What is better? To define the god of war (of the Old Testament) as the god of the world... Or to define the god of Ultimate concern as comparing the questions, "What is most important to you based on what you think, feel and do?" & "What will help you and those around you most?"
As far as this goes, I think the conflicting definitions will coalesce into something resembling the religious landscape we have now regardless. I mean, a large portion of the U.S. defines their ultimate concern in such a way as to preclude the morality of homosexuality. Anyone whose ultimate concern does not reflect this is at best wrong, at worst a dangerous corrupting influence that should be suppressed. People form groups to have an identity and part of that is excluding others. I think it is just human nature, and I don't think redefining God in an ecumenical sort of way will change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
I can relate with not communicating honestly... but it's more SANE! I am surrounded by a cult I was raised with. I can't leave without tearing up my family and losing a lot... so I don't leave. I've learned to redefine terms, so that my blood doesn't boil when I'm preached to. I realize it's good to try to help others see other perspectives, but I can't change anyone & they won't change their perspective a second before they're ready. So until then, I redefine gospel terms so I can resonate with what I'm dealt...
I totally understand this. I come from a very conservative Christian family. All of my immediate family and most of my extended family are very devout. The one cousin that has "come out" as an atheist has had a lot of conflict with her family trying to "bring her back to the fold". I have not discussed my current lack of belief with my family for that same reason. I am trying very hard not to strain the relationships, which are already pretty tense.
For me, though, I cannot do the redefinition thing. I feel like that is not being honest with myself or with my family, and as difficult as it may become, I owe them that. I don't plan on starting anything, but when they ask me, I will tell them honestly what I (don't) believe. I feel like to lead them on in thinking that I am still a believer would be dishonest.
I don't want you to feel like I am judging you. I can identify with your situation, and recognize that different people in different situations have to deal with them in different ways. If this is something that works for you, then by all means go for it. It just would not be a workable option for me.
I hope this post is coherent. I think I am getting bit tired, and maybe am not writing in as clear and direct a manner as I would like. Please let me know if I am not making sense anywhere.
They really are not related. The Gnostic sect of Christianity was a sort of mystery religion variation of Christianity, wherein some divine inner knowledge or "Gnosis" is the means of salvation. It was treated as a heresy and mostly stamped out in the early centuries of the church.
The term gnostic is from the Greek for "learned" and connotes having knowledge. Agnostic basically means "without knowledge". The term Agnostic means that you don't claim knowledge that you cannot demonstrate. Gnostic, in this sense, means that you do claim knowledge, even if you cannot demonstrate or prove it.
The only real link is the definition of the word gnosis - "knowledge"
Thanks, I just feel it is a lot more conducive to understanding than just snarking back and forth. Makes me feel all civilized, and stuff...
Definitely!
Quote:
I think that as a personal belief that is fine. I personally don't want to label any of those things as god, because I don't think it helps me do anything. I mean, why can't love be love, energy be energy, and life be life? Why label any of those things as god(s)? The way I see it, anything I experience, know, or understand clearly enough to label doesn't need to be labeled God to have an effect on my life. Anything that I cannot understand well enough to at least name, doesn't deserve to be labeled God, and can just be resolved with, "I don't know". I just personally don't understand why it be personally useful to label something non transcendent, non-supernatural in that way.
Yes, I understand what you mean. Maybe we should just call it "ultimate concern" - our striving for what is best, through trial & error - but "God" is shorter. And as it is, we have this hugely influential word, "God", which definition, needs major reconstruction.
Quote:
As far as this goes, I think the conflicting definitions will coalesce into something resembling the religious landscape we have now regardless. I mean, a large portion of the U.S. defines their ultimate concern in such a way as to preclude the morality of homosexuality. Anyone whose ultimate concern does not reflect this is at best wrong, at worst a dangerous corrupting influence that should be suppressed.
Yes, "Anyone whose ultimate concern does not reflect this is at best wrong, at worst a dangerous corrupting influence that should be suppressed." I've seen freedom of speech be impaired & other rights be denied in the name of the homosexuality agenda. Homosexuality has proven to be harmful to children (being taught homosexuality as young as 6 in public schools where gay marriage has been legalized). Children (our future society) are being denied the right to a mother or father, when adopted in homosexual marriages. According to the USCDC, homosexuals get & spread much more STDs and AIDS than heterosexuals & anal sex carries major health risks even in 2 healthy males. People are important to be honored & respected. Harmful behavior is not, yet peer pressure & media is insisting harmful behavior be praised & if someone doesn't praise it, they are called all kinds of names. The attitude regarding this varies in parts of the world, but this reflects my experience & others I've become aware of in the US.
Quote:
People form groups to have an identity and part of that is excluding others. I think it is just human nature, and I don't think redefining God in an ecumenical sort of way will change it.
Maybe not initially. But I believe in humanity to evolve in intelligence... & to eventually understand what is best (ultimate concern) in the big picture.
Quote:
I totally understand this. I come from a very conservative Christian family. All of my immediate family and most of my extended family are very devout. The one cousin that has "come out" as an atheist has had a lot of conflict with her family trying to "bring her back to the fold". I have not discussed my current lack of belief with my family for that same reason. I am trying very hard not to strain the relationships, which are already pretty tense.
For me, though, I cannot do the redefinition thing. I feel like that is not being honest with myself or with my family, and as difficult as it may become, I owe them that. I don't plan on starting anything, but when they ask me, I will tell them honestly what I (don't) believe. I feel like to lead them on in thinking that I am still a believer would be dishonest.
I don't want you to feel like I am judging you. I can identify with your situation, and recognize that different people in different situations have to deal with them in different ways. If this is something that works for you, then by all means go for it. It just would not be a workable option for me.
I hope this post is coherent. I think I am getting bit tired, and maybe am not writing in as clear and direct a manner as I would like. Please let me know if I am not making sense anywhere.
NoCapo
I think I understand & it seems we have some in common, in that we realize sometimes being brutely open & honest is not conducive to relating well, especially when perspectives are so different.
I have been pretty upfront with people - like my family and bishop. It could've gone better & could have gone worse. They think I'm wrong & shame & pity me for "falling away from the faith." I still go to church... but that doesn't matter to them... Because I've brought up issues that threatened the integrity of their church, which, as good cult members, they see as themselves.
A study I read, showed that those who took a more casual approach to religion did better than those more involved & better than those not involved at all. It's mostly the hope & sense of community support. It's hard to get people together, let alone find a sense of belonging with people who's goal it is to be good & loving. I've gotten people together & it takes work... most people don't want to go to the trouble. It's more convenient to have the gathering done for us. We can get a sense of belonging from sport teams, book clubs, bike groups etc... But most of these are based on the interest, not on higher goals or caring for each other. That's one benefit of religion. The draw back of religion is that to belong you have to lose some identity... or maybe you don't have to, if you can find a way.
I wonder if some of us (me) just don't like to be labeled with the masses. I think if I weren't surrounded (I mean 365 degrees) by Theists, I wouldn't be fighting against it so much. I've always wondered about things & had to understand deeper than superficially going through the motions, yet maybe it's partly I just need some breathing room - fresh air... some spice maybe.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 03-02-2012 at 05:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
