Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does God need redefining?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Over the last year or so I have become ever more angered by the way religious groups operate, yet at the same time I have become ashamed to openly voice disbelief due to the immature militant wing of atheism that seems to grow almost as fast as a new religion itself. My main issue is that yes the core of almost all religions are based on lies and control but that simply does not give folks the right to shout obscenities instead of trying to engage in open debate to politely challenge belief and doctrine. Couple this with the growing fame of people like Richard Dawkins who seem to have some redwood sized chip on their shoulder and thus feel the need to condescend anyone who thinks differently and atheism is becoming a joke.

Now getting to the actual point I have come up with perhaps an idea of discussion that could help bridge the gap between believers in a deity and those who do not. For me the notion is a simple question "What is (insert deity name)?" I don't mean this in a spiritual or theological sense but in a full physical and scientific way. So to get the hump out of the way, this idea simply cannot ever work when dealing with anyone who has a belief in a direct creation theory and takes that belief literally, you simply cannot have a good argument with someone who refuses to believe factual science.

However many more folks who are religious now have a belief that perhaps god simply started everything off and put the wheels in motion as part of a grand plan etc. Though if you also keep abreast of science you will see a growing number of physicists are pointing towards a multiverse theory rather than the "something from nothing" idea of a big bang. This in no way defeats god and quite the opposite lends support to the possible existence of god, as it gets around the "So where did god come from?" argument many militant atheists like to use, the problem there is you have attacked someone instead of engaging them.

Now my argument does require a large amount of leeway with hypothetical ideas but I do not think they are so far out of the realms of sci-fi as they first sound. Here on Earth we have already achieved remarkable breakthroughs with genetic work going so far as cloning many types of animals, were it not for certain ethical restrictions with regards to stem cell work etc I have no doubt we would have likely managed to create a new basic life form by now too. Taking that many eons into the future it would not be so hard to envisage a civilization that can create entire ecosystems, and further still moves you into the territory of type IV & V Kardeshev groups. At this point they may have vast power but that does not make them "divine" and I am a little confused just what exactly ever can constitute anything as divine. I would be interested if any religious person could compare the two and explain just what makes one divine and the other not.

This is the root of the argument, if we humans someday grew to the level of a type V civilization and put out our own little big bang would the beings of that universe worship us? Perhaps yes, but more importantly should they worship us? I think not as we can already do this on a small scale with a petri dish, we can have god like control over a life form but that does not make us divine. In the same way there could be some highly advance being out there that was the creator of this universe as part of a school science test etc, but should that give them the badge of divine and give us cause to worship them? I would agree we should try to communicate so we can learn from them however that is different from following doctrine based on a beings level of power, that would be a following of fear and the actions of a sycophant.

Next time you are talking with someone who has a belief in a deity like being and you are about to attack their belief try asking them why. Ask them to define what makes their god divine and not simply advanced, one may garner respect and admiration sure but what ever if anything deserves worship? If folks who are sucked into religious groups were engaged in such a way then more may start to listen and ask honest open questions. This could do more for the breaking down of religious organisations than any amount of verbal abuse currently being touted by the athiest militants who are still seeking vengeance for the 3 years of Sunday school they were forced to attend.




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I think the term Heavenly Father, instead of God. A number of religious people see God as word that can be thrown around for any simple reason. It by no means is, but by some means is not the absolute wrong. Gods have existed in the most ancient accounts of humanity. Some humans have claimed to be Gods.

Here is the difference: Be it Hades, Zeus, Thor, Ra, Isis, Mars, Any of mythology really, Some accounted for the creation of man, while others were just there to play a role.

This is why "God" inherently loses meaning in education and experience. Using the lords name in vain is a trend in this generation, and I have to ask myself why? If so many were to displease the clear God in this in many more ways, why would we even still be allowed tongues?

Our Heavenly Father means only one thing.. be it in any area or religion, any space on the desolate, thinly inhabited regions of the earth, it means only one thing. Perhaps this could provide a road to unity?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Some religions are the antithesis of logic.

Those that 'believe' *whichever religions doctrines*, are sometimes told by those doctrines that any other opinion, or those believing any other opinion as *whichever derogatory term*, which basically is a bind to their religion and an excuse for denying logic or considering any other opinion.

People that think in such ways would first need to believe that their religion could be flawed and that there could be other possibilities before considering other opinions.
edit on 23-8-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Not all atheists are militant (I know you know that) and the more the non-militant atheists speak out, the more people will be made aware of that fact. There are, after all, militant believers, as well.

One of the biggest issues I have with belief in God is that everyone defines God in a different way. Some take the bible literally, some say it's symbolic, but God does exist, some say he's the creator, some say he put the whole evolution thing in motion, some say WE are God, some say Nature is God and some say God is everything that exists. If you ask 10 different people, you'll get 10 different definitions.

Asking, "So, where did God come from"? is not an attack. It's a question. If there is a discussion, why shouldn't that question be on the table. Asking "What is God" or "What makes God divine"? is just as likely to incur a defensive answer as asking where God came from...

You think people become atheists because they were forced to attend Sunday School? That's kind of narrow and judgmental, don't you think?

When I've had discussions with my husband about belief in God, he tells me, (paraphrasing) "It's not that I don't believe in a creator or God, I just don't think he wants to be worshiped. If worship is part of the bargain of being a believer, I must be an atheist."

Very thoughtful post!



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: feygan


Does God need redefining?


No...the current definition: A fabricated noun via mankind, works just fine.




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
People will believe what reality (experience) points them towards until they know the truth through experience. This has been the case since man first experienced thought and then created faith, so, imo, there is no need to redefine what humans don’t really know.

Faith is a substitute for experience it’s not the final level.

You believe the medicine will work but you won’t know until you take it.

They say there are three degrees of faith:
The Lore of Certainty: Holy books, stories, theories, fables.
The Eye of Certainty: intuition, cognition.
And
The Truth of Certainty: Direct experience of God or reality.

We are all practically at only the 1st and 2nd level
And a select few at the final level were they have had some direct experience of God…and can go beyond faith, theory and intuition.
edit on 23-8-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Allah is the Supreme Being, and He is a man and he has many angels who are also men, and they most likely lurk around this website



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MX61000

You don't mean Fard Muhammad do you?
t and c



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
no.

god is too well established a template for any new interpretation of him/her/it/them.

now if the question had been 'does god need dismissing?' i would say a resounding yes.

enough with this god crap. whichever god, whatever it's called. it is a monumental fail.

IMHO of course.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
With all due respect to all parties...I have asked, many times. The responses I have gotten lead me to believe that theism has more to do with how we think than with how the world operates. I would request clarification...this discussion is not concerned with the practicality of theism, correct? Or is that also a facet in need of exploration here?

And my answer is yes. I feel the word "god" ought to be CLARIFIED. I also feel the clarification process should be handled with all the care and consideration of clarifying such words as truth, love, and beauty. Let it be done right.
edit on 23-8-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I dont think the Creator God needs redefining, I think God needs to be understood.

I read posts by Christians and non Christians alike and a lot of what is said and believed is not accurate.

God at his very core is both love and justice, justice in such a way as any sleight against the law needs to be rectified, love in the way that He will show mercy to anyone who asks and repents (repentance means stopping the rebellion against the law).

Redefining the God is reworking the teaching.

What you are saying is "Your God doesnt work for me so change it". Well you dont have to worship my God.
Its not compulsory

Then your idea that your science is bigger than my God who created your science, you have a Dawkins sized chip on your shoulder

Then the root of your argument is you have a petri dish of something and that makes you a God. A farmer has a garden, is he a God, a zoo keeper has a zoo, a god?

Your idea of God is very small



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I am a god to all the little creatures whose lives are at my mercy. Volcanoes do not give birth to people, but the Greeks worshipped hephaestus. Thunder storms do not create planets, but Thor was venerated for hundreds of years. Athena was neither all knowing or all powerful, yet people worship her as a goddess even today. Your parameters for identifying and qualifying deities seem to ignore such history.
edit on 23-8-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
God needs to be undefined. It is our very habit of defining God (and everything else) that gives rise to religious strife and psychotic zealotry.

God is everything. God is nothing. Definitions are meaningless. Language is a spiritual obstacle.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
God has always been defined through religious philosophy.
At least the religions have had the courage or audacity to offer some reason for where we came from, and where we are going.
Science offers only possibilities based on cause and effect and the intellect.
The mystics the possibility of knowing through the soul.
What does that tell us?

That tells us that the soul is God!



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
God needs to be undefined. It is our very habit of defining God (and everything else) that gives rise to religious strife and psychotic zealotry.

God is everything. God is nothing. Definitions are meaningless. Language is a spiritual obstacle.


Can a square with no edges still be called a square?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Can a square with no edges still be called a square?

Does it matter?



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Yes. Edges provide definition. An idea without language is a shape without definition. Spirituality without language is as helpful as gas without a car.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Yes. Edges provide definition. An idea without language is a shape without definition.

Yet that doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist.


Spirituality without language is as helpful as gas without a car.

I never said we should eliminate language from anything. I simply said it's an obstacle to be overcome, and it isn't necessary for spirituality (which is a uniquely personal experience and cannot be truly communicated in the first place, try as some may).

People get caught up on the words and miss the experience entirely.

So go ahead, define God. Let me know if that brings you any closer to It.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

You dismiss a state of being by dismissing the idea of God. "One, Right". No matter what point or counterpoint it's impossible to escape the title of God without voiding yourself.

The point I gather from you overall is not one I understand fully.. For with any advanced civilization there is order and tiers. The responsibility of a mass to govern itself is too overwhelming when left to any physical constraints. It must be three dimensional, a Pyramid of structure..

If God is then simplified to "One, Right" We even create God in our government, as this is One unit we live by, and would be uncivilized without. Fact: many governments exist. We conspire about a world government even. I haven't truly been able to figure out if that sucks major dick or kicks major butt. Structure seems to create itself in the tiers of a social pyramid, but the top always means "One, Right"

Even people who don't respect authority are governed by what they believe to be right and wrong. An (a?) Utopia can still be created with people who all believe the same of Right and Wrong with no government.. but they are still governed. By "One, Right"

I do think you're intelligent and would love to know if I've misunderstood.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
God by theory has to be everything. What in existence is not god?

If something in existence is not God, then where could it have come from other than God?
Ibn Arabi, the 10th century Sufi Mystic, formed a theory called Wajd Wujid that states EVERYTING IS GOD! en.wikipedia.org...

Others, that everything is a creation of God but himself.

Then where did God get the other stuff from? Where did he create this other stuff but from himself?

It has to be from himself. Or it is other than him and there CAN’T be something other than God.

People get confused because creation is so imperfect: How can a criminal be God if everything is God?

The answer to that is easy

God involuted (imperfected-created-devolved) a part of himself in order to know himself (rise up through knowledge)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join