I think we should have a thread to discuss what God means to you. If you claim to believe in god what do you mean? What do you think about when you think about god? If you claim to not believe in god, what definition are you claiming is not real? Is there a definition of god that you could say is real? It’s not about quoting the dictionary or just saying what denomination you are. What do you mean when you make claims about the existence or non-existence of god? Where do you get your definition from? Does your definition ever change?
I believe it is an all present Force. The totality of all existence exist with in it. I look at every individual life form, as but like a ray from the Sun. It is not the sun itself but it exists within it. I think existence is eternal and infinite. And birth and death being like unto going into a hallway full of doors stretching over the horizon until forever, and each death and birth is simply going into a new door. I hold my beliefs for a series of reasons. For example when you think within yourself you hear your own voice but where is it? Who is the one that hears it and observes it? It does not exist externally, so what is the thinker that observes and participates in it? Is our mental existence within ourself possibly more real than physical reality? Does it perhaps give rise to physical reality? Assuming we do indeed exist infinitely and for eternity it must be more real than this body we inhabit for the body is but temporal. It must be that thing that knows no death nor entropy. When we dream where are we? Near death experiences and so-called hallucinogenic drugs, where do these experiences take place? Anyhow I have no evidence I'm just giving my opinions and beliefs and they are subject to change.
To me, God is The Creator. He is a conscious being that does things purposefully. Perhaps He is a byproduct of the 'big bang', or perhaps he's the creator of that too. Dunno. I find the theory that 'God is energy' and 'God is a universal neural network' to both be likely, but I also dont think He is only those things. I think He views himself as our father and us as his children. I think God may have been a less-than-all-powerful being at some point in the unfathomable past, essentially evolved to God-hood, and has created us with the intent that we'll, at some point in the unfathomable future, do the same.
There are no celestial deities of any kind in this solar system as depicted in the assorted religions. Such beings are imaginary and were created by various con men to gain power and influence over their superstitious buddies while enriching themselves. The biblical character Moses is a prime example of the religious con man.
I don't subscribe to the grandfatherly figure in the clouds myself, however I think it is folly to declare that there is no such a being. What do you suppose primitive man would have made of radio waves having no knowledge of such things?
As I wrote in another post, we are all gods compared to ancient people. During ancient times the emperor, king, chief priest of the local government were considered to be gods by their people. In today's world such rulers have lost some of their luster but they are still held in awe by most common people because of the power they have over their lives. It is a matter of life and death. Today, millions of people are very intelligent and can create all kinds of miraculous things that would have been beyond ancient man's comprehension. But none of us are really celestial spiritual Gods in the religious sense. We are just people with the power of creation and destruction and, unlike the biblical God, we can defeat iron chariots.
I am a theological non-cognitivist, I consider any question about the existence (or other features) of God to be meaningless unless it is defined. Given that I'm not committed to any particular understanding of it, I'm happy to consider others' understandings and definitions. For instance, this means that while I'll agree with atheists on most points, if someone presents me with the Sun, or reality, or a totem as a god, I don't think it is my task to declare them not to be gods, and I do believe they exist. It would still be potentially misleading to call me a theist on those grounds (since others will disagree on the definitions), so I end up as a theological non-cognitivist. Of course, I only end up there because there is no obvious conceptualisation of God that I am committed to.
I'm an atheist. But if I were a believer, the Islamic concept of God would appeal to me very much. Therefore: God is the creator of the universe. He made man the administrator of the earth and His servant. We're also here to learn and improve for the afterlife. Because reality is just a test. The test is very easy, but unfortunately, some still fail.
God is consciousness, which is everything - and its/his/her awareness is total. God is the Unified field that is simultaneously aware of every aspect of itself as subject, object and perceiver across not only our Universe but all Universes.
I'm an atheist. I figure god was man made with the intentions of controlling the behavior of the masses. Also it has provided a lot of income for people I consider unscrupulous.
AFAIK, God is described as a 'being' which is considered an existence? Im not so sure about all the associated claims people assume are part of that alleged existence either?
Completely off topic, but I wonder who was the first person to coin the phrase Jesus H. Christ. Did they go through the entire alphabet and decided that H sounded the best for his middle initial?
Hmm... should we then be arguing over the efficacy of the control you allege during those times? Is there a God to control da guvmint too Now take the brits, they had kings that declared themselves gods! The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. Divine right of kings - Wikipedia Maybe someone can help me sort out this G/god thing so I know what it really is since JC and the pope appear to have competition for the title as assignees of the power of "G/god". Interestingly they are all men and some Queens!
So it is pretty unarguable that religion is used to control people. As Kokomojojo pointed out political authority is often asserted with a claim of divine appointment. Does that necessarily mean that God is defined as being a political tool? Is it possible for people to have a definition of god that excludes political authority? I think a lot of people would say that the answer to that question is yes. So I guess my question to you is: Does the definition of god necessarily have to include this political component?
I can argue it however! politics is personal beliefs which morph into religion and then is taken public, the result of individuals that want and demand the world to be clones of themselves. unfortunately all to often they only want clones of one or 2 characteristics of themselves, political religion is when clones of a feather stick together and of course that is called a democracy, where 49.09% are dictated to by 50.01% of the clones of the population.
Of course religion is used to control people. Take Christianity, for example. Their "loving" God gives you one of two choices. Love him or die. That's it. There is no third option. No other choice. When someone (or an institution) gives you an ultimatum, that is a form of control....
It’s the light and driving force that will still exist once an entity learns all the facts there is to know about the natural universe we perceive.
Jesus H. Christ was first used in 1924. The H represents Hominum (Men). So, the phrase means "Jesus Savior of Men". Go to the site =etymonline.com, search Jesus & christ.
And, my favorite is "You didn't pray right." Oh, okay. So, he has all the sick, abused, neglected, handicapped (differently-abled), hurting, suicidal, homicidal, etc. people on Call Block because they didn't say the right words? /eyeroll
So the whole thing about religion being a form of control is best described by Karl Marx who famously referred to religion as the opiate of the masses. Karl Marx drew upon Kant’s dialectic. In this analysis of human society the world is ever-changing in a cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Society is organized one way (thesis) but over time demand for change cause a reaction to the thesis (antithesis) which eventually gets amalgamated with the thesis to become the synthesis. This synthesis forms a new thesis and the cycle begins again. An example would be the Protestant reformation. Europe was dominated by the feudal Catholic Church (thesis), Martin Luther and his followers demanded change by nailing his 99 Theses to the door of a Catholic Church (antithesis) resulting in a new religious landscape in which there were multiple denominations of Christian faith (synthesis). Marx would point out that religion was not just responding to the criticisms of Martin Luther, it was adapting to a new world in which economic power was allocated through capitalism. The new Liberal ways of viewing god reflected the new liberal values of capitalism. A whole new hierarchy of economic power was evolving at the same time that a whole new hierarchy of religious power was evolving. So to Marx the actions and morals of individuals were less significant than the collective movements of groups of people. Your moral choices as an individual are really irrelevant compared to the collective moral choices of entire societies. More to come….
yeh synthesis of opposites came from hegels dialectic afaik. Morals are a basis for any religion (atheists included) which is why marxism was, still is viewed as a religion. Marx was referring to deity worship when he talked about religion, excluded his own of course.
Now consider the thoughts of Soren Kierkegaard. He would point out that it is the actions and morals of individuals that make up the morals and actions of the collective. So definitely the choices and morals of individuals are very relevant to the structure and hierarchy of power in societies. He thought about these actions as being on display to a huge audience. Most people are part of an audience that just views the actions of the individuals who actually make change. The audience just follows along. In the previous example, Martin Luther is empowered to make a definitive action because he is neither a slave of the finite or a slave to the infinite. Every person in a Liberal post-enlightenment society has the option of choosing to be whoever they want to be. In the old feudal system people were bound to their section of the hierarchy with no actual class mobility. In the post-enlightenment world we are free to choose to be who we want to be and that abundance of options can freeze people to become slaves to the infinite. Overwhelmed by infinite options we choose nothing at all and find ourselves just following the path of the least resistance. On the flip side we may become slaves to the finite - that is we become what our parents or our church or our schools tell us to become. Kierkegaard was a Christian but he was different from many Christians in the sense that he thoroughly examined the decision making process that people go through to become Christian and found that a lot of the motivations were either a result of being slave to the finite or slave to the infinite. To Kierkegaard, God is the motivating force that pushed you out of being a slave to the finite or the infinite. In the end, for Kierkegaard, the decision to make the leap to Christian faith is made because he finds it to be the most reasonable decision to make. And yeah I am rambling here but the point I am making is that religion (as the opiate of the masses) and God (as the enlightening force that helps humans to realize their best self) are two different things. One could believe in God but not be part of the herd.
