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.
Once again, a thread has been dragged off topic by discussions about Pantheism. We have a thread for that. The topic of this thread is Strange, metaphoric uses of “God” Please ignore off topic remarks. Report as appropriate.
I think "strange" usages is in the eye of the beholder, but most beholders see god as an interventionist being responsible for both the creation and maintenance of the universe, and usually having some sort of claim on how we are supposed to relate to it and to each other. Inherently such beings are, if not all powerful and all knowing, at least much more so than humans.
I would argue also that polytheistic and animistic god concepts are mostly not in play for most in the West.
I do not think the UU god concept is necessarily pan(en)theistic; it probably evolved more from New Thought. But the point is that it is ill-defined and at the risk of being pedantic, we atheists almost always ask "which god" when someone wants to talk about their god-beliefs and IDK if that question is even answerable by a UU because their impulse would be to say "whatever god you want" anyway. Since an overly "inclusive" or broad idea of god is verging on meaningless for purposes of discussion, I am not sure how to even proceed to talk about it in this case.
The lack of definition in UU congregations isn't just confined to god, but as I've pointed out, to faith and practice. They struggle so mightily to come up with rituals and transcendent narratives without actually imposing specific ideas that it ends up being more comical than helpful IMO. They light a candle at the start of each service and snuff it at the end; this candle is supposed to represent, not the light of knowledge (because -- knowledge of WHAT?) but of community. And yet community needs something around which to coalesce effectively. And they end up arguing about what that should be. Much of it at least locally to me ends up being fairly political, and oddly while I don't really disagree with their politics, there's something in the quality of how they engage that is still a turnoff. In part it is the fractiousness of it, of people turning against the congregation itself because it's not correctly labeling the restrooms or providing separate ones for trans folk, etc. It just ends up being stressful and complicated, which is not what "church" should be really.
Actually, I have a rather detailed rationale in my Synthesis that employs established scientific knowledge to present a plausible explanation for how God as Consciousness establishes the spacetime field (quantum foam) that comprises our Reality and what our role is in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
You have taken work done by scientists and came to you own opinion. Has your "theory" been tested or even peer review?
Besides it is jusr your own personal opinion and it resulrs ib a claim that has no real world value.
In additon you are claiming not only that your assumption is correct but even worse you are now claiming that there is only one alternative to your ideas and its not a,claim that anyone else has ever made.
There is zero evidence that Reality must mean God or Not God. Just your word games and insults.
Until you publish your hyphoteis and have it peer reviewed and tested it is not scientific theory nor does it model the real world. It does nothing and means next to nothing.
You unfairly accuse me of making claims and demands that I do not and have not made. That would be the definition of PLAUSIBLE which is all I have ever claimed for it.
You unfairly accuse me of making claims and demands that I do not and have not made. That would be the definition of PLAUSIBLE which is all I have ever claimed for it.
I understand. Actually, I can't think of any concept of God that is more metaphoric and strange than Panentheism, but if it is considered off-topic you have no choice.
So what would the difference be between say, believing in evolution and believing that God is a metaphor for evolution? I mean in actually practice? Is someone going to pray to evolution, for example?
I guess I just see some of these as trying out have one’s cake (atheist) and eat it too (but I believe in God!)
The funny thing about UU is that you could believe exactly like you do now... and you would be welcome. You can be an atheist... and you would be welcome.
You can believe that God is "group consciousness" or you could believe God is that dead opossum laying in the road. There are no restrictions.
Granted, people like yourself would never seek out the UUs because being open minded about all this stuff isn't real high on your priority list. You'd prefer to adhere to a stricter doctrine than go to a church that basically doesn't really have one. And that is understandable. But for others who prefer openmindedness regarding doctrine...it's a pretty good spot.
The funny thing about UU is that you could believe exactly like you do now... and you would be welcome. You can be an atheist... and you would be welcome.
You can believe that God is "group consciousness" or you could believe God is that dead opossum laying in the road. There are no restrictions.
In theory you are correct. In practice, you are mostly correct. However, specific UU congregations may feel less than entirely welcoming to an atheist. The first problem is style. I went to a UU service in NC once, where my daughter lives, and it was much more reminiscent of an evangelical style service than the one here in upstate NY that I've also been to. I didn't much care for that as an atheist.
But that's just style. The real problem is that at least sometimes the minister themselves has a strong pro-theism bias. I interacted online with a UU minister from Georgia and he got extremely offended when I argued (nicely) against the existence of god. It was a bridge too far for him. His acceptance of any belief definitely had limits. I would imagine that part of that may come from running a UU congregation deep in the Bible Belt, and trying to soft-peddle that piece of their "openness" in a very conservative environment, but whatever the reason, I would not assume zero discrimination against atheism in every UU church.
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.
