@Godless Infidel
Congrats, you are the 100th poster! Thank you. I am happy to respond. I think you have made an excellent summary of the argument especially how I have become to understand the atheist specifically.

It sounds to me that as a "Fredist," one could be comparable to a theist or an atheist as far as using God, the universe, or Fred, as the foundation of belief granted that it meant the same thing (although to be careful, it is difficult to say they include the exact same understanding) My basic premise here is that there exists "absolute truth." (Do we have any supporting evidence for this?)Since I think we are all attempting to describe absolute truth through the combination of theory, observation, and for some, "spiritual apprehension." This is the semantics issue that has been pointed out. Look at my last post #92 and #99 for more on this.

Step 1, metaphysics check. I really don't think it matters what you call it initially, however I think this is really the biggest point of contention between theists and atheists, with both sides getting upset that the other can't see the "way" (you can see how this could be frustrating since it is essentially identical.) Which is, I believe, why many of the arguments will then degenerate into debate over doctrine, the behavior which stems from doctrine, (which often includes the metaphors, behavior goals, outcomes, knowledge, etc.) and which stirs up so much fighting since it concerns mostly personal choice rather than Faith directly.

So, as I think we have sufficiently covered the foundation. One reason why I choose to use God is that it allows me to be part of a community of theists. It allows me to behave. I have chosen an environment (of Christians mostly) to which I have included myself. Just as I continue to choose to be an American, a gym member, or a worker.

I have the freedom to choose my associations, (although sadly, some people do not). Why did I choose the category Christian, (with the sub-category Zen Christian) rather than another denomination or religions outlook? I like the behavior that is promoted. (not all of it, we can debate that ) My specific lack of understanding, Godless Infidel, and I am beginning to believe a difficulty for other atheists out there is the problem of behavioral choice. Although, one may feel that it is impossible to use theist language, or even to associate with religious people, the question of choice still exists. Behaviorally, what does one put effort into? The universe exists, and it is Good, (Existing is the only requirement for being Good, "God is Good.") and by extension, all humans are "good." Then it becomes choice and consequence that create proper or desirable behavior and outcome. What behavior does one choose to engage in and why. Some may choose to become scientists which (ironically?) is a form of modern day theology. It is open for debate.

I appreciate your polite and thoughtful posts. Thank you.

Hello! And welcome to the forum, DefineGod.

DefineGod wrote:I must assert that, being a process of inquiry, rather than a system of belief, science itself, lacks the ability to describe anything outside of the method.

Such as?

LucidFlight wrote:Hello! And welcome to the forum, DefineGod.

DefineGod wrote:I must assert that, being a process of inquiry, rather than a system of belief, science itself, lacks the ability to describe anything outside of the method.

Such as?

Anything that isn't observable, repeatable, or measurable.

Such as the depth of of my love for my fellow man, what it means to be an American, or why I like the taste of whiskey over the taste of rum.

amkerman wrote:Anything that isn't observable, repeatable, or measurable.

Such as the depth of of my love for my fellow man, what it means to be an American, or why I like the taste of whiskey over the taste of rum.

Can theism help us understand these things? Should we try to understand such things? Can we begin to understand such things? How is it that you know you love your fellow man? Have you observed this feeling in yourself? What is it to be American, other than to state it? Can you define it in some way that other Americans may recognise? Why do you think you prefer the taste of whiskey to the taste of rum? Do you wonder if there is perhaps some underlying mechanism to your preference of one thing over another? Do you ever wonder about the underlying logic and mechanisms of our sometimes seemingly illogical and irrational minds?

DefineGod wrote:Tell me more about what you mean by a personal god. I would like to have a definition help me understand if that is something I can apply to my viewpoint. (or if I do already without having used that specific label.)

Others have addressed this, and I pretty much agree with what has been said. Approximately, a personal god is one with attributes of a person, or to be more parsimonious, attributes of the kind that are used to distinguish people from rocks, natural forces, and equations.

Some have suggested volition, agency, information processing, and other ideas. These are all OK, but I'd rather not go there, because words are never as precise as philosophers think. I think that the best we can do is say that most people have some sort of pragmatic idea of what personhood entails, good enough to tell a person from something other in most instances. Not everybody does; there is good evidence that some serial killers are unable to distinguish between the living and the obviously dead. We just have to hope that nobody in this discussion has that particular brain defect.

I would also add that theism involves the idea that god has the attributes of a person as a whole. In pantheism, for example, say that god is the universe, and the universe obviously contains people, who are people (most of them, anyway). That does not make it theism, because that doesn't mean that the universe is a person, if you understand the fallacies of composition and decomposition. Panentheists say that the divine is in everything, but it's obviously not theism because electrons don't behave as people. Deism ascribes only the ability to create a universe to god, and that is not an ability commonly associated with people (though we're working on it).

I know a guy who some people call "maurice." Remember, there is no definition as to what an atheist believes or how he behaves concerning his lack of belief. (Is that what I learned?) Although I don't know.

Could you tell me what an atheist might have faith in? How does one behave like an atheist? I am still under the impression (as it has been posited to me here) that being an atheist is unrelated to what one (or any) atheist does do. I'm not looking for a tell all. Just a case study on one atheist. Not out to get anybody. I just am so darn curious.

The only thing you can conclude about an atheist is that they do not believe a certain thing. That's a balls-to-the wall strict definition of what "atheist" means.

However, there are a number of behaviors that are, practically, common to atheists. No one of them is universal amongst atheists or unique to atheists. However, amongst the population that does many of these things, the more things they do, the chances of finding an atheist who does none of them asymptotically approaches zero. Because there is only a finite population, this works well enough.

I cannot list these things without a great deal of work. It's more like my neural network has been trained to recognize them from three decades of being an atheist and being exposed to other atheists.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_0ava_MSSw[/youtube][/quote]

amkerman wrote:

Teuton wrote:

Byron wrote:I'm just pointing out that God is conceived as a personal, supernatural entity by many (most, I'd wager) believers. The Swinburne description's a good one.

…and an authoritative one. There is no doubt as to what God is like according to Abrahamic (Jewish/Christian/Islamic) monotheism (monopsychotheism/monopneumatotheism): God is an eternal extraspatial/extraspatiotemporal personal spirit/spiritual (immaterial) person with superlative powers.
(A person is a self-conscious individual capable of perception, reflection, and intentional action.)

is what I believe God is. AKA reality.

I honestly don't think I could function under the idea that reality was extraspatial, extratemporal, personal, spiritual, and capable of perception, reflection and intentional action. Not least because such a concept of reality would offend my every living observation that reality is none of those things, let alone all of them.

I'm enjoying this topic, but mainly as I have a friend who, on encountering theists of any stripe, proclaimed that his cat was God. When they said "but God is omnipresent" he would simply reply "Well, so is my cat", and if they said that God was responsible for fine-tuning the form of the universe, he would reply "My cat is very proud of choosing just the right speed of light." The indignation of theists at the idea that it was possible for my friend to accurately observe a verifiably existent being as having the qualities they attributed their god(s) was most amusing.

Sorry for the interruption. As you were...

DefineGod wrote:
So, as I think we have sufficiently covered the foundation. One reason why I choose to use God is that it allows me to be part of a community of theists. It allows me to behave. I have chosen an environment (of Christians mostly) to which I have included myself. Just as I continue to choose to be an American, a gym member, or a worker.

(trimmed for post size)

I appreciate your polite and thoughtful posts. Thank you.

You're welcome. I enjoy an interesting polite conversation. I can also use derision and ridicule when called for. Your posts have plainly not called for it. Many could take a lesson from this.

In most cases theists are followers of a theism handed down and distorted over many generations. Behavior based on this theism can be horrific. You can read of many cases every day. You asked me some questions earlier that I have yet to answer.

DefineGod wrote:
I understand you. Can I assume you mean practicing and non-practicing by active and non-active? I want to make sure I understand the rest. I have found similar behavior from many "religious" folk. This can be related to Tillach's faith definition in that "idolatry" is based on ultimate concern in a something other than God. (Taken in vain)
How would you describe yourself now?

I used the term active because 'practicing atheist' is a contradiction. We have established this using the dead mans test. obviously atheists behave. We aren't dead yet. Some atheists go to church for the sense of community you describe. I would argue that the atheist position helps to free one from consciously or unconsciously behaving based on the beliefs of long dead superstitious bigots. It's kind of a clean slate to choose behavior based on relative merit.

How would I describe myself now? Active. Participating on a forum like this is a good example. I also act against bigoted and unjust behavior whether it is based on theism or not. My observations of such behavior suggest that much (if not most) of it is.

Edit:
By act I mean militant atheist action. also known as the written word.
/edit

OlivierK wrote:
I honestly don't think I could function under the idea that reality was extraspatial, extratemporal, personal, spiritual, and capable of perception, reflection and intentional action. Not least because such a concept of reality would offend my every living observation that reality is none of those things, let alone all of them.

I'm enjoying this topic, but mainly as I have a friend who, on encountering theists of any stripe, proclaimed that his cat was God. When they said "but God is omnipresent" he would simply reply "Well, so is my cat", and if they said that God was responsible for fine-tuning the form of the universe, he would reply "My cat is very proud of choosing just the right speed of light." The indignation of theists at the idea that it was possible for my friend to accurately observe a verifiably existent being as having the qualities they attributed their god(s) was most amusing.

Sorry for the interruption. As you were...

@OlivierK
Hiya Oli! I'm glad you are entertained! I found an interesting video on extra spatial/temporal.(below) Still not sure about what personal/spiritual means in this context. I would venture that it is an attempt make easier the explanation of a highly abstract/complex idea (perhaps you are not the intended audience.) Maybe @Agrippina has some scripture related to this aspect of God in the Bible. The last qualities don't seem to conform to any of my observations except through metaphor. For example: Perception, reflection, and action may be describing the idea of instantaneous application like gravity when viewed as a "person." What does everyone else think? Good area to explore?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehVpYqTuJLw[/youtube]

Oh man! So funny. Had to take a break. I will add this to my signature.
"My cat is very proud of choosing just the right speed of light."

@epepke
Thank you for the insight. It seems that you have quite a good grasp of what is commonly ascribed to theists as well as a working jurisprudence of atheistic behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio
It is my understanding at this point that addressing the personal God aspect of theism is very important as most non-theists require this attribute. Maybe @Byron or @Chairman Bill can add insight or information on this particularly?

@Godless Infidel
thumbs up for the last post.

I've always taken the view that when people describe gods as personal or spiritual that what they mean is pretty much what it says on the tin: that their god has attributes that we associate with personhood (consciousness, conscience, volition, agency, etc) in some disembodied way. And to someone like me who thinks that it's natural (or at least very much the observed pattern) for mythological entities to be created somewhat in man's image, then the idea of a personal god is one that is pretty much inevitable, albeit fictional rather than real.

@Olivierk

OlivierK wrote:I've always taken the view that when people describe gods as personal or spiritual that what they mean is pretty much what it says on the tin: that their god has attributes that we associate with personhood (consciousness, conscience, volition, agency, etc) in some disembodied way. And to someone like me who thinks that it's natural (or at least very much the observed pattern) for mythological entities to be created somewhat in man's image, then the idea of a personal god is one that is pretty much inevitable, albeit fictional rather than real.

This, again, seems to be the consensus view among "non-believers." Although, to me, it seems a narrow, even elementary definition, similar to how one political party might describe another. Perhaps I am missing the deeper understanding of this description because what I perceive is quite a superficial perspective. Is there more to the rejection of God than a rejection of the fictional personhood of an old white man? Giving an "actual" conscience, volition, etc. to a "being" doesn't seem to fit with what we are able to describe though observation, or rational thought, so why include it other than for simplicity of understanding. This is often how we teach, shape and learn in every other field, why stray from what works well? I don't prefer to criticize the developmental path, irrespectively, we all mature differently in thoughts and action.

I think that superstition, (related to ritual or coincidence) or feelings of providence may have uses, (Now, or previously in the EEA http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/eea.html) practical or otherwise helpful/harmful. You have pointed out that God or "mythological entities"(god(s) are created in Man's image, "or at least the observed pattern" in others (data?), rather than the phrase "man in God's image."(Genesis 1:27, Anecdotal?) I could ask a first year university student to describe their area of study and receive only a basic framework, but to be fair I wouldn't expect much more than that.

I want to be fair to what you are saying so correct me if I have misstated or otherwise misrepresented your views, on how others' views are viewed by you. I believe your construction to be sound at this point ("the idea of the personal god is inevitable") although, given the inaccurate nature of the premise, I feel ecological validity can be improved. What do you think? I think "fictional rather than real," is a very powerful statement, although I think one could conjecture that all abstract theory can be considered unreal. Right?

Thanks for the post. I am learning something from each exchange! all around!

epepke wrote:Panentheists say that the divine is in everything, but it's obviously not theism because electrons don't behave as people.

Although if everything is in God -- if God is the ground of our being -- then the electron's godself is partial in the extreme, and the problem is removed.

DefineGod wrote:
The difficulty here is that the more ways one explains something, the more words are used and the more "confusion" that people feel. So I must ask what the problems are specifically.
Is this confusion being caused by me being unclear in my definition? Are you confused because you don't understand?
Perhaps I should have used "unintentional embarrassment/abashment" rather than "unintentional confusion." I apologize for using "confuse" with two different meanings of the word so close together. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confuse That, I admit, was unclear. (the path to the light should not be taken lightly ) It is important to me to be clear in argument but, when I am clear, I cannot be responsible for lack of understanding.
Are you asking me why I personally choose to use religious language to describe reality? http://www.religioustolerance.org/alt_mean.htm Or are you asking me why I don't only use atheist or anti-theist language or scientific language to describe God? (Obviously I can do both.) I understand that maybe people are uncomfortable using religious language. Refer to post #92 referring to the cognitive dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance that one may feel using the term "God" while also being an "atheist." (So one uses "Universe, Absolute, Oneness, etc.")
While there may not be any "need" to use religious language, there has been quite a lot of thought, discourse, and experience concerning God or (insert comforting scientific word here,) since the advent of Christianity (and before.) So I ask,why would one want to throw away all that knowledge, just so one would feel secure?

I think the problem is that the label "God" comes with so much historical and emotional baggage, sticking it on anything tends to obscure rather than illuminate, at least from where I'm standing.

So if one wants to talk about the ground of all being or all-that-is or being-itself, then just talk about those things. I don't see anything to be gained by sticking the letters "G", "o" and "d" on them.

There are atheist Christians who do not believe in the literal truth of Christianity, but who do see it as a useful lens through which to view the world or as an important part of their cultural identity, or both. The Don Cupitt''s "Sea of Faith" movement, for instance. I don't have any problems with that, except that for me, not believing in God, a god or gods renders the particulars of any specific religion rather redundant. Your mileage may vary

Or it could just be that I am an incorrigible stick-in-the-mud.

DefineGod wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]Olivierk[/b][/color]

OlivierK wrote:I've always taken the view that when people describe gods as personal or spiritual that what they mean is pretty much what it says on the tin: that their god has attributes that we associate with personhood (consciousness, conscience, volition, agency, etc) in some disembodied way. And to someone like me who thinks that it's natural (or at least very much the observed pattern) for mythological entities to be created somewhat in man's image, then the idea of a personal god is one that is pretty much inevitable, albeit fictional rather than real.

This, again, seems to be the consensus view among "non-believers." Although, to me, it seems a narrow, even elementary definition, similar to how one political party might describe another. Perhaps I am missing the deeper understanding of this description because what I perceive is quite a superficial perspective. Is there more to the rejection of God than a rejection of the fictional personhood of an old white man? Giving an "actual" conscience, volition, etc. to a "being" doesn't seem to fit with what we are able to describe though observation, or rational thought, so why include it other than for simplicity of understanding. This is often how we teach, shape and learn in every other field, why stray from what works well? I don't prefer to criticize the developmental path, irrespectively, we all mature differently in thoughts and action.

Now, now, no need to strawman my description with that "old white man" bullshit. I didn't say that, and you know it.

Secondly, I'm quite explicitly not giving my own views, but rather passing on my understanding of what it means to describe god as "personal", an understanding that I've gleaned from believers and their texts. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard believers assign consciousness, conscience, volition, and/or agency to their god-concept, I would never need to work again. Perhaps if believers were better at explaining what they mean, instead of waffling about how God is so ineffably mysterious, then those of us who lack direct religious experience might better understand what they mean by "a personal God".

I agree totally that assigning those attributes to a disembodied entity does not fit with observation or rational thought, but that just leads me to the conclusion that there is no possible reason to believe in the existence of a personal god on a level beyond the metaphorical/mythological.

DefineGod wrote:I think that superstition, (related to ritual or coincidence) or feelings of providence may have uses, (Now, or previously in the EEA http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/eea.html) practical or otherwise helpful/harmful. You have pointed out that God or "mythological entities"(god(s) are created in Man's image, "or at least the observed pattern" in others (data?), rather than the phrase "man in God's image."(Genesis 1:27, Anecdotal?) I could ask a first year university student to describe their area of study and receive only a basic framework, but to be fair I wouldn't expect much more than that.

Sure superstition has uses (and as you say, for both better and worse). So what? Its usefulness is unrelated to its truth value. Human history is littered with fictional beings with human attributes. It would seem that those who wish to claim that their gods are anything more than just another unit coming off that fast-chugging assembly line better have reasons for that.

DefineGod wrote:I want to be fair to what you are saying so correct me if I have misstated or otherwise misrepresented your views, on how others' views are viewed by you. I believe your construction to be sound at this point ("the idea of the personal god is inevitable") although, given the inaccurate nature of the premise, I feel ecological validity can be improved. What do you think? I think "fictional rather than real," is a very powerful statement, although I think one could conjecture that all abstract theory can be considered unreal. Right?

Indeed all abstract theory can be considered unreal. Unless you're going to equivocate "real" and "conceivable" (through which you can say that any concept is real, or Harry Potter is real), then that's exactly what "abstract" means. The fact that many theists do equivocate "real" and "conceivable" for God (but not Harry Potter) doesn't make it any more valid.

-----

I get the feeling you think that my views are simplistic, and that this is evidence that they are wrong. But atheism is a pretty simple concept, akin to the null hypothesis. It's my observations that theists have far more complex and nuanced understandings of gods (or at least their own gods) because the lack of correspondence between theism and reality causes the weaving of rather tangled webs of thought. Complexity through contortionism isn't a virtue.

It rather reminds me of how children can construct the most elaborate scenarios to explain how their brother came to have that cut on his forehead that miraculously avoid the simplest explanation "I hit him with the stick I'm still holding in my hand".

You seem to be proposing a sort of reverse of Occam's razor - that explanations are to be doubted in relation to their parsimony. That it's uneducated to merely dismiss as fictional concepts that bear all the attributes of being just that.

Please note that I'm not for second doubting the existence of religion, nor the sincerity of belief of believers - those things seem self-evident. It's only whether theism is anything more than sincere belief in a fiction that I remain unconvinced of (and utterly so).

DefineGod wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]epepke[/b][/color]
Thank you for the insight. It seems that you have quite a good grasp of what is commonly ascribed to theists as well as a working jurisprudence of atheistic behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio
It is my understanding at this point that addressing the personal God aspect of theism is very important as most non-theists require this attribute. Maybe @[color=#CC0000][b]Byron[/b][/color] or @[color=#CC0000][b]Chairman Bill[/b][/color] can add insight or information on this particularly?

I don't know that non-theists require anything, let alone the personal attribute. It's just that this is the way that theism has historically been defined.

As for non-theists, I've found that most really do not care about what people think except insofar as they make claims about the universe or morality, most of which come from the personal attributes ascribed to a god-concept.

OlivierK wrote:

DefineGod wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b][color=#CC0000][b]Olivierk[/b][/color][/b][/color]

OlivierK wrote:I've always taken the view that when people describe gods as personal or spiritual that what they mean is pretty much what it says on the tin: that their god has attributes that we associate with personhood (consciousness, conscience, volition, agency, etc) in some disembodied way. And to someone like me who thinks that it's natural (or at least very much the observed pattern) for mythological entities to be created somewhat in man's image, then the idea of a personal god is one that is pretty much inevitable, albeit fictional rather than real.

This, again, seems to be the consensus view among "non-believers." Although, to me, it seems a narrow, even elementary definition, similar to how one political party might describe another. Perhaps I am missing the deeper understanding of this description because what I perceive is quite a superficial perspective. Is there more to the rejection of God than a rejection of the fictional personhood of an old white man? Giving an "actual" conscience, volition, etc. to a "being" doesn't seem to fit with what we are able to describe though observation, or rational thought, so why include it other than for simplicity of understanding. This is often how we teach, shape and learn in every other field, why stray from what works well? I don't prefer to criticize the developmental path, irrespectively, we all mature differently in thoughts and action.

Now, now, no need to strawman my description with that "old white man" bullshit. I didn't say that, and you know it.

Haha, fair enough. I might have stretched a bit there, lumping you with my frustrations.

Secondly, I'm quite explicitly not giving my own views, but rather passing on my understanding of what it means to describe god as "personal", an understanding that I've gleaned from believers and their texts. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard believers assign consciousness, conscience, volition, and/or agency to their god-concept, I would never need to work again. Perhaps if believers were better at explaining what they mean, instead of waffling about how God is so ineffably mysterious, then those of us who lack direct religious experience might better understand what they mean by "a personal God".

Haha, you would be rich indeed. I think I can see what you are trying to say here. I am beginning to think the reason behind the personal God may be for simplification. (Using natural human strengths to enhance early understanding "God loves you!" to describe the concept of forgiveness of sin?) Also, as I have done some research, using the idea of a personal God to combat the historical problem of church power, in effect, to emphasize the ability for self-absolution. (thus creating a personal relationship with God instead of strictly an intermediary one through a priest or theocracy.) I have to do more research regarding this particular subject (the idea of "personal" god) I am definitely not condoning or employing the creation of some inherent secret or mysterious aspect unable to be grasped by some. (the shibboleth?) I also hope I don't come across as solely an apologist. I'm growing here too!
I have seen the word "waffling" a few times now, (like flip-flopping in the U.S.?) hehe, I am unaware if I am guilty of this. Any examples in my writings? I could probably clear them up if so.

I agree totally that assigning those attributes to a disembodied entity does not fit with observation or rational thought, but that just leads me to the conclusion that there is no possible reason to believe in the existence of a personal god on a level beyond the metaphorical/mythological.

I quite agree with you here. I didn't think I had proposed anything outside of this. I see it as a way to encourage the early grasping at a vast concept through the social equipment we have available to us, like the mechanisms which allow us to recognize faces right side up but not as well upside down.http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/faces.html

. Interesting yes?

DefineGod wrote:I think that superstition, (related to ritual or coincidence) or feelings of providence may have uses, (Now, or previously in the EEA http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/eea.html) practical or otherwise helpful/harmful. You have pointed out that God or "mythological entities"(god(s) are created in Man's image, "or at least the observed pattern" in others (data?), rather than the phrase "man in God's image."(Genesis 1:27, Anecdotal?) I could ask a first year university student to describe their area of study and receive only a basic framework, but to be fair I wouldn't expect much more than that.

Sure superstition has uses (and as you say, for both better and worse). So what? Its usefulness is unrelated to its truth value. Human history is littered with fictional beings with human attributes. It would seem that those who wish to claim that their gods are anything more than just another unit coming off that fast-chugging assembly line better have reasons for that.

I agree, I think the truth value related to proximal or "actual" superstition is relative. The ultimate evolved mechanism for superstition has been described as the mistaken association between linked behaviors (mostly with close temporal occurrence.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation
http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/wasserman/glossary/superstitious%20behavior.html
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/human-ethology/message/30389
The point I would like to make is that ritual or superstitious behavior has an effect on future behavior, including emotional behavior. Attempts to wield power through behavior control, are quite popular. I don't see this as relevant to metaphysical concepts directly. Although religious concepts may or may not be based on this foundation.http://www.scientology.org/ (the church has been a big bad wolf in regard to control through punishment/reinforcement in the abstract, especially in the past. Governments/dictators/ideology have also had a share of this type of control including recently.)

DefineGod wrote:I want to be fair to what you are saying so correct me if I have misstated or otherwise misrepresented your views, on how others' views are viewed by you. I believe your construction to be sound at this point ("the idea of the personal god is inevitable") although, given the inaccurate nature of the premise, I feel ecological validity can be improved. What do you think? I think "fictional rather than real," is a very powerful statement, although I think one could conjecture that all abstract theory can be considered unreal. Right?

Indeed all abstract theory can be considered unreal. Unless you're going to equivocate "real" and "conceivable" (through which you can say that any concept is real, or Harry Potter is real), then that's exactly what "abstract" means. The fact that many theists do equivocate "real" and "conceivable" for God (but not Harry Potter) doesn't make it any more valid.

Some theists/atheists equivocate real and conceivable. Although I think that some theists, like myself, say God is inconceivable (cannot be fully grasped, only apprehended.) Does that make God unreal?! LOL! (I just know this will be quoted,haha)
-----

I get the feeling you think that my views are simplistic, and that this is evidence that they are wrong. But atheism is a pretty simple concept, akin to the null hypothesis. It's my observations that theists have far more complex and nuanced understandings of gods (or at least their own gods) because the lack of correspondence between theism and reality causes the weaving of rather tangled webs of thought. Complexity through contortionism isn't a virtue.

It rather reminds me of how children can construct the most elaborate scenarios to explain how their brother came to have that cut on his forehead that miraculously avoid the simplest explanation "I hit him with the stick I'm still holding in my hand".

You seem to be proposing a sort of reverse of Occam's razor - that explanations are to be doubted in relation to their parsimony. That it's uneducated to merely dismiss as fictional concepts that bear all the attributes of being just that.

Please note that I'm not for second doubting the existence of religion, nor the sincerity of belief of believers - those things seem self-evident. It's only whether theism is anything more than sincere belief in a fiction that I remain unconvinced of (and utterly so).

I hope that I didn't come across as rude or disrespectful. I do not think simple means wrong, I apologize if I gave that impression. (parsimonious when possible). I see your points here. I have my own experience with certain unnamed Christian fundamentalist groups; I am unable to get though their complex language webs.

"HAVE you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?!"
"Define accept..."
"Huh? Well, I mean, how is your personal relationship with God?"
"Yea, we good, we hang out ALL the time"
"Well, Okaaay, we have a bible study tomorrow! You can learn about what it means to be a true Christian!"
"You have no idea what a waste of time that wou.."
"The devil is everywhere! Lets pray!"

I think there are very educated and intelligent people everywhere, with various understanding and beliefs. Personally, I find frustrating the extreme amount of prejudice I often receive from people who base MY concepts/beliefs on the IMO "simplistic" or basic understandings of God. (Through low level information sources, a college campus, the internet, or perhaps one of those fundamentalist groups, whose goals are, IMO more about quantity rather than quality members.)
Thanks for listening and responded in detail. I hope we can find some more common ground and resolve our differences accurately!

If you define the universe as god, by what method do you reach the conclusion that the bible would have any insights into that god?

I can see studying it for it's historical value in helping explain why a society is shaped as it is, and, if you like, as a framework to justify any (there are loads of words to mess with) set of rules. But other than that the bible is in the universe, what links it to your god?

This looks like a somewhat ignorant question to my own eyes but I have been struck by your continued references to specifically biblical/christian concepts (trinity, scriptures etc) and I can't square them with universe=god.

YoumanBean wrote:If you define the universe as god, by what method do you reach the conclusion that the bible would have any insights into that god?

I can see studying it for it's historical value in helping explain why a society is shaped as it is, and, if you like, as a framework to justify any (there are loads of words to mess with) set of rules. But other than that the bible is in the universe, what links it to your god?

This looks like a somewhat ignorant question to my own eyes but I have been struck by your continued references to specifically biblical/christian concepts (trinity, scriptures etc) and I can't square them with universe=god.

Hi @YoumanBean
Thanks for your interest in the topic. I use the rhythm method. But seriously, the bible is a large anthology, tough to describe in a post or two as people spend their whole lives going to church to hear and study the word of God. Historical and modern value does exist, I think you are correct. Many ethics/laws of modern society are similar. To be clear, I am an amateur when it concerns biblical studies, (read- have not read cover to cover, although certain topics in depth.) What links any book to God? See post #30 for more information on this. Does there have to be more reasons? I am not aware that the bible offers any kind of arguments or proof for the existence of god, rather it offers description. An important complaint some have is that it contains outdated concepts, contradictions, or calls for behavior which in a modern world is considered strange or "evil." Here is a link to food regulation in biblical law.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/233/wwilkenfeld.html
Here is a link to another quick article.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788
I think its really up to the reader to decide what is to like or dislike.

I have mentioned quite a few concepts that are specific to Christians as I consider myself a Christian. I can only talk about what I know, and my own views on them. Here are links to other sources which aim to increase experience (apprehend) God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan
http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html
http://hinduism.about.com/od/godsgoddesses/tp/deities.htm
http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/Rastafarianism-Magee.htm

I also find it interesting how uncomfortable it is for some and I am not singling out anyone out specifically, to use "God." Most often it is "your god or gods." See post #92 an #114 for more on this psychology.

Did that help answer the questions? I'm not sure it did. I encourage searches for bible verses, find and research some you like or find interesting and bring it up here. Thanks for reading and posting! It sure has grown into a lot of information now.

Nebogipfel wrote:

DefineGod wrote:
The difficulty here is that the more ways one explains something, the more words are used and the more "confusion" that people feel. So I must ask what the problems are specifically.
Is this confusion being caused by me being unclear in my definition? Are you confused because you don't understand?
Perhaps I should have used "unintentional embarrassment/abashment" rather than "unintentional confusion." I apologize for using "confuse" with two different meanings of the word so close together. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confuse That, I admit, was unclear. (the path to the light should not be taken lightly ) It is important to me to be clear in argument but, when I am clear, I cannot be responsible for lack of understanding.
Are you asking me why I personally choose to use religious language to describe reality? http://www.religioustolerance.org/alt_mean.htm Or are you asking me why I don't only use atheist or anti-theist language or scientific language to describe God? (Obviously I can do both.) I understand that maybe people are uncomfortable using religious language. Refer to post #92 referring to the cognitive dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance that one may feel using the term "God" while also being an "atheist." (So one uses "Universe, Absolute, Oneness, etc.")
While there may not be any "need" to use religious language, there has been quite a lot of thought, discourse, and experience concerning God or (insert comforting scientific word here,) since the advent of Christianity (and before.) So I ask,why would one want to throw away all that knowledge, just so one would feel secure?

I think the problem is that the label "God" comes with so much historical and emotional baggage, sticking it on anything tends to obscure rather than illuminate, at least from where I'm standing.

I can see what you mean. There is quite a bit of baggage connected to this word in English and I am challenged to really think about why this word is important in itself. I don't think it is. Its what the symbol represents, not the symbol itself that is important. I am not against using other words to explain the concept although I prefer to use God over trying to explain what I mean at every instance. Perhaps not a proper analogy, but it feels like I would be trying to explain what the British Empire "is" without using labels that include the whole. I could use examples of Asia or Africa but be no closer to explaining the Empire itself. (Not that it is explained by the word itself anyway.) I hope that clears why I use the word. You have succinctly established your point.

So if one wants to talk about the ground of all being or all-that-is or being-itself, then just talk about those things. I don't see anything to be gained by sticking the letters "G", "o" and "d" on them.

I agree with the first sentence, I think that makes sense. What about when you want to talk about the whole? Any suggestions?

There are atheist Christians who do not believe in the literal truth of Christianity, but who do see it as a useful lens through which to view the world or as an important part of their cultural identity, or both. The Don Cupitt''s "Sea of Faith" movement, for instance. I don't have any problems with that, except that for me, not believing in God, a god or gods renders the particulars of any specific religion rather redundant. Your mileage may vary

Or it could just be that I am an incorrigible stick-in-the-mud.

Haha, no way! Intellectual adventure is always just around the corner. Thanks for the post @Nebogipfel