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.
Any religion that takes its Myths literally is a false religion, hence a literalist Christian is wrong while a non-literalist Vedanta Hindu or Wiccan is not.
“Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”-Joseph Campbell
The religion may be true but the Mythology is not literal. True in meaning? Yes. True as in literal events? No.
If a position thinks Christianity is an untrue story, thats all it can say . It has nothing to do with confusing what it is, with the issues in conceptualizing idea's .
Last edited by alexcanter; 11-25-2013 at 01:36 AM..
GOD is a metaphor for reality just as a picture of an atom is a "metaphor" of the atom. Just as we can't really see GOD so we create Zeus or Jesus, we can't really see an atom so we create a picture of one. Just as one can use different colors for an atom but see similar end results because it is, after all, just a model, one can also see similar results from using different GODS because, after all, it is just a model.
NO, reality is reality. I fully understand where you are coming from and all I am debating are your assertions. You failed in the analogy of the atom simply because we can prove atoms exist, can conduct experiments anywhere in the world as the results are ALWAYS the same. God assertions are not testable in any way and the lame attempt to redefine reality as god gets you nowhere.
Quote:
Someone who prays to Shiva gets the same comfort as someone who prays to Jesus. Because they are both excellent models or stand ins for the real thing, which we can never understand.
Thank you for agreeing to my assertion that gods are a function only of the imagination of the brain.
No. Some "blind" people are not able to "see" it...but , fortunately, the vaaaaaaast majority of all the people that have ever lived aren't "blind" to it.
Your analogy to blindness has failed for reasons I gave in the past. But it also fails for another reason.
The "vast majority" of people "seeing" something does not validate the thing they are seeing. Open a simple book of optical illusions and the "vast majority" of people will think certain lines are longer than others, when they are not. Or that two things in a picture are different colors, when they are not.
You try to assert that explaining god to an atheist is like explaining color to a blind person. Yet we can very easily do the latter. We can evidence light and color exists even to blind people. At no point however have you evidenced your god entity exists. You just use this crass and failed analogy to divert attention from that failing. What you have to do to force the square analogy through the round hole is to assume as true the very position you are using the analogy to argue for.
But you then extend the analogy of sight to claim argumentum ad populum in your favor. Yet using that analogy to sight I can easily point out that the "vast majority" of people see things as true that are patently and demonstrably false.
So not only does your analogy fail. It seems to attack your own position in at least two strong ways.
You can not evidence or substantiate your claims so your entire approach is to declare a deficiency or failing in the people who fail to simple swallow your assertions as you produce them in a fashion similar to The Human Centipede film.
GOD is a metaphor for reality just as a picture of an atom is a "metaphor" of the atom.
Then once again I have to point out that the title of the thread is "explain how my god doesnt exist". If all you are presenting is an empty metaphor that you personally find palatable.... then what it is you want "explained" to you could not be more unclear.
Yet when we look at people around this forum who try this metaphor trick, such as GldnRule above, we quickly find out that they are not espousing mere metaphors but genuinely believe that this reality itself is actually conscious.
A metaphor for reality is one thing.... and I encourage it strongly..... but all too many people do not stop there and the metaphor becomes real to them. Real, distinct, and possessing attributes like consciousness, intelligence, morality, imagination and more.
When one is trying to get 'God' (in any form from the tribal God of the Bible to little more than a euphemism for 'what we know exists') on the debating table, it is necessary to define or explain just what 'My God' actually is. Then we know what we are arguing about.
It is noxiously easy to ooze away from under inexorable pressure to another position 'But that isn't the only thing that 'God' can be.
The only one thing we can be sure of with any of the definitions of 'God' is that there is not a shred of decent evidence that there is any such thing.
Your analogy to blindness has failed for reasons I gave in the past. But it also fails for another reason.
The "vast majority" of people "seeing" something does not validate the thing they are seeing. Open a simple book of optical illusions and the "vast majority" of people will think certain lines are longer than others, when they are not. Or that two things in a picture are different colors, when they are not.
You try to assert that explaining god to an atheist is like explaining color to a blind person. Yet we can very easily do the latter. We can evidence light and color exists even to blind people. At no point however have you evidenced your god entity exists. You just use this crass and failed analogy to divert attention from that failing. What you have to do to force the square analogy through the round hole is to assume as true the very position you are using the analogy to argue for.
But you then extend the analogy of sight to claim argumentum ad populum in your favor. Yet using that analogy to sight I can easily point out that the "vast majority" of people see things as true that are patently and demonstrably false.
So not only does your analogy fail. It seems to attack your own position in at least two strong ways.
You can not evidence or substantiate your claims so your entire approach is to declare a deficiency or failing in the people who fail to simple swallow your assertions as you produce them in a fashion similar to The Human Centipede film.
Your comparison to "a book of optical illusions" would be valid...if you could prove that the attributes of Reality/The Universe/ Nature, etc, that I perceive meritorious to title "GOD" are, in fact, "illusions"
That the incomprehensible magnitude of the size of The Universe is not as science believes it has discovered...it's just an "illusion"---that the incredible "laws & processes" that govern and control reality, such as gravity, thermodynamics, evolution, etc, are just "illusions"---etc.
If those attributes are real, and not "illusions", YOUR comparison fails.
But if they are real and do actually exist, and NOT "illusions"...but you, et al, do not "see" (right-brain perception) them as meritorious of being defined and titled "GOD"...MY analogy is validated.
As the OP has so well explained...many times "metaphor GOD(s)" (Zeus, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, etc) are used as similitudes for our ineffable Reality and all its attributes...and as Mystic explained are all part of our "spiritual fossil record" of God belief that is held by the vast majority.
That you, et al, don't "see" (deficient right-brain perception) this is my analogy to "Blind vs Sighted".
See, Nozz (oh man, that word "see" again"!)...just because you, et al, don't like it that people have the concept & perception of "GOD"...or you, et al, don't agree that their concept & perception is "GOD"...does not invalidate it. You need to get hip to that.
Then once again I have to point out that the title of the thread is "explain how my god doesnt exist". If all you are presenting is an empty metaphor that you personally find palatable.... then what it is you want "explained" to you could not be more unclear.
Yet when we look at people around this forum who try this metaphor trick, such as GldnRule above, we quickly find out that they are not espousing mere metaphors but genuinely believe that this reality itself is actually conscious.
A metaphor for reality is one thing.... and I encourage it strongly..... but all too many people do not stop there and the metaphor becomes real to them. Real, distinct, and possessing attributes like consciousness, intelligence, morality, imagination and more.
Reality is not just consciousness...it IS consciousness.
Consciousness is the nexus for our reality...as it is all manifested through consciousness.
So, when you, et al, say, "GOD is all in your head"...EXACTLY! From the standpoint that we perceive our consciousness coming "from our head".
"GOD" is "all in our head" no different than any other aspect of our actual reality that we perceive.
What is really a hoot...is Atheists coming on a Religion Forum and telling Theists about "GOD Belief" concepts and/or what is and isn't acceptable manifestations of GOD that can be reasonably discussed.
The "GOD is ALL" concept is incredibly prolific, try this: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Note the parts--"~~As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it. Others hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical. In other words: that the Universe (with all its divine extensions, planets, suns, galaxies, thrones and creatures) is what people and religions call "God".~~~ AND ~~~"One philosopher has said that there may be more pantheists than theists worldwide. Hinduism is the world's third largest religion and it is generally asserted that Hindu religious texts may be the oldest known literature containing pantheistic ideas.The Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism teaches that theAtman (true self; human soul) is indistinct from Brahman (the unknown reality of everything). The branches of Hinduism teaching forms of pantheism are known as non-dualist schools. There are elements of pantheism in some forms of Christianity, Islam (Sufism), Buddhism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Neopaganism, and Theosophy as well as in several tendencies in many theistic religions. The Islamic religious tradition, in particular Sufism and Alevism, has a strong belief in the unitary nature of the universe and the concept that everything in it is an aspect of God itself, although their perspective, like many traditional perspectives, may lean closer to panentheism. Many other traditional and folk religions including African traditional religions and Native American religions can be seen as pantheistic, or a mixture of pantheism and other doctrines such as polytheism and animism. A variety of modern paganists also hold pantheistic views."~~~
The concept of "GOD is ALL" is one of the most widely held theological concepts...and it is ultra-formidable in The Arena of World Merit and Influence. It's Atheism that has no power or might in that regard...and has spent the past many thousands of years getting trounced and crushed.
If it were seen as baseball teams...Pantheism would be the Boston Red Sox, and Atheism would be a small town Little League team with a losing record. And THAT is REALITY...differing "perspectives" not withstanding.
So you agree that this "god" is a random, purpose-less thing? How do you square that away with the billions who believe that their god created the universe and therefore, this god? What is the point in believing in this god? How would you be any different than an atheist? This god doesn't prescribe morality, etc.....so effectively, how are you any different in outcome than an atheist? An atheist believes in the universe (but does not call it god). So if you are saying we both believe in the same thing (universe/reality), then what else is gained by calling yourself a theist? What is the difference?
So you agree that this "god" is a random, purpose-less thing?
No, I do not agree that GOD is random and purpose-less...though, it wouldn't matter if GOD was.
How do you square that away with the billions who believe that their god created the universe and therefore, this god?
As victorianpunk wrote in his thread here...those entities are metaphorical representations/models for "GOD".
To view Reality and all its creation, control of what it creates through laws and processes, and the maintenance and sustenance of it, through the lens of a Metaphorical GOD is common and typical...and I fully understand the basis of the concept of doing that.
What is the point in believing in this god? How would you be any different than an atheist? This god doesn't prescribe morality, etc.....so effectively, how are you any different in outcome than an atheist?
The point in believing is whatever the point is to each individual Believer.
"Outcomes" are not always the focal point of my, or anyone else's perceptions.
An atheist believes in the universe (but does not call it god). So if you are saying we both believe in the same thing (universe/reality), then what else is gained by calling yourself a theist? What is the difference?
The difference is the perception of the known attributes of The Universe/Nature/Reality, etc, as being meritorious of the assignment of title "GOD".
As far as "gaining" something by the perception of GOD. You gain in the way you do from anything else beyond what you need to know & perceive to survive.
As far as "gaining" something by the perception of GOD. You gain in the way you do from anything else beyond what you need to know & perceive to survive.
God as pure metaphor or god = the natural world and its laws is very different from the sort of god normally debated in this space. I personally consider such a god both meaningless and irrelevant and thus no different in practice than no god at all.
In point of fact, it probably is just a more honest (less dishonest?) canvas upon which one's personal god can be projected, than the typical externalized imaginary friend. But as Arq and others have noted, while MetaphorGod, DeistGod and, to a lesser extent, LiberalGod are not inherently as odious as, say, BibleGod, it seems irresistible to people to start making such vague gods into something more than initially represented, and to attach more and more specific attributes to them, taking us back to Square One.
The reason for this is that there is no point in a god so vague and amorphous as a metaphor. Implicit in your seemingly innocuous embrace of a highly abstract god is your own concrete conception of it, and attributes, including personal ones, that you consciously or unconsciously attach to it to make it attractive enough to you to labor mightily to argue on its behalf. You want something from this god ... maybe not absolution or comfort or specific favors, but at least to render some aspect of your existence more explicable. In that moment, even Metaphor God becomes a crutch and a hinderance to free thought because you are removing things from the realm of the unknown without good reason and supporting evidence.
I am happy to be constrained by things I can definitely establish. I know the sun will rise every day and that every day will consist of roughly 24 hours and that gravity holds me to the ground with a certain constant force. But I am not ceding any hypothetical to the status of a given without evidence. And so the most I can say about MetaphorGod is that he is hypothetically possible but no more likely than any other god concept I have heard because there is no basis to call it god vs nature vs the universe vs reality other than personal preference with all the motives that back that preference.
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.
