Why Atheists Just Don't Get IT.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
The Hotel has 25 $.
The three men combined have 3$.
The cheap bellhop has 2$.

25+3+2= 30.

The way it was written is just an attempt to confuse the reader. As I'm sure you know there is no missing dollar.

What dollar?

It's just a story, there was never really $30.00 to begin with.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It's just a story, there was never really $30.00 to begin with.

I know, just an attempt to put down atheists.

I am the Alpha and The Omega.

I take that to mean life begins at a point and ends at that same point. Wheres a supreme being in that. How do you define supreme being. If we all emanate from that point and that is the point we all return to then in fact aren't we all the supreme being, containing all that was before us?

What makes you think that there is a separate "deity" or "supreme being".

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It's just a story, there was never really $30.00 to begin with.

I know, just an attempt to put down atheists.

Hey now, I put down everyone just as equally.

just joking, actually the point of the riddle was simply to show how the word problem itself and rhetoric chosen could decieve, if only for a fraction of a second. It forces the mind to know it accepts the facts, but not the conclusions.

I'll be back on tomorrow, but for now have to go. Please, feed the thread!

And, thanks for the contributions.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Hey now, I put down everyone just as equally.

I know this statement was a joke, but in your original statement you do exaclty what you complain about. Atheists can't tell you what it's like to believe in God, just as you can't tell them what its like not to. The fault of the mind is a human fault, not just one attributed to Atheists.

Originally posted by Mayet
How do you define supreme being.

I think that's key. I think a definition of God would be a good place to start. Because if someone were to ask if I believe in God, the first thing I would say is "It depends on what you mean by God."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think a definition of God would be a good place to start.

Because if someone were to ask if I believe in God, the first thing I would say is "It depends on what you mean by God."

So true--yet even starting at that point often puts those discussing said key question at places still quite far off from each other.

I once had an idea of no longer using the word 'God'--instead I thought to just say 'THE.' I didn't go too far with it; it was tiresome to explain each time it was brought up with someone new. Yet 'THE' is basically the closest I can come to an accurate designation for the 'idea' of God that I've had, from as early as I can remember. There's no fatherly authority in my mind, or anything anthromorphic at all--it's more vague than defined, and the more I seem to connect with Pure Spirit, the less defined my concept becomes.

Nevertheless, I don't think it is possible to define God even for the purposes of someone else understanding what I mean by 'God,' because no matter what I say I conceive as 'God'--the listener will perceive their own 'God' instead of mine. It's just impossible to prevent, IMO.

As far as atheism goes--it's the same way with that term, too. To be without 'God' in one's conceptualization wholly depends on how one defines 'God.' I don't think there is any fault with any soul's conceptualization of 'God.' Personally, I feel sure there is a supreme and perfect consciousness that is totally ethereal ('pure Spirit') as far as our own material reality, yet is the source of all the energy that IS. And I feel that no matter how it might seem to any one of us at any given time--no matter how ugly or unjust things might be from our own particular vantage point/place in time--that 'all is well.' All is as it should be--whatever we each think is what we must think, for various unknown reasons which are unnecessary complications if we begin to feel we must explore and qualify whether they are legitimate reasons or not.

IOW, I think we all mind each other's business far too much--neglecting our own.

that's just an observation, not a criticism, even though I readily include myself in that statement

Sorry E. Teacher, if this is off topic. But I'm still not sure what responses you were trying to evoke or induce, these are simply my thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Nevertheless, I don't think it is possible to define God even for the purposes of someone else understanding what I mean by 'God,'

Even closer to what I'm thinking. I think the closest I can come to defining 'God' is to say what it isn't for me. I have also tried different words, because for me to say that I believe in 'God' is misleading, because of what I think other people have in their minds. Like you said, if I say the word God, people think of their interpretation of God, when in reality, I don't believe in that at all.

The rest of this post is script from my PODcast, 'Why I don't believe in God':

There were several concepts covered in the movie (What the Bleep do We Know?) that really helped me to nail down some of my beliefs. One of them goes something like this:

The biggest mistake made by organized religion is in separating us from God. In making God a big father-type entity, who watches us and notes when we do bad and when we do good and keeps track and ultimately punishes or rewards us at the end of our lives.

I still can’t call God ‘he’ because it’s an incorrect pronoun as far as I’m concerned and I won’t say that I believe in God, simply because there are too many assumptions made by people and I don’t wish to mislead anyone. But I came to a very important understanding of myself and my beliefs when I thought about that travesty of organized religion has inspired. The travesty of separating ourselves from God and looking upon ourselves as lowly, unworthy, shameful, sinful creatures, while God is a perfect holy SEPERATE being. I just don’t buy that and never will.
....

The other concept:

The height of arrogance and the height of control was when man made God in his image.

Now, that hit me square in the forehead like a brick! When man projected onto his version of God, the corporeal qualities of anger, vengeance, pettiness, jealousy, arrogance, he did himself a great disservice. When man attributed the mind-set and emotions of physical humankind onto a spiritual God he made God in his image, which I just don’t believe is the case. God is the spiritual unity of us all. For us to think that we can offend God is just ridiculous. For us to think that God gets jealous if we don’t give him enough attention is just nonsense!

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Hey now, I put down everyone just as equally.

Atheists can't tell you what it's like to believe in God, just as you can't tell them what its like not to.

This statement would be true if the athiest did at one point truly believe in God and experience everything with the accepted (by their mind) precept of an omni-presence that is conscious just as people who truly believe in an omnipresent omnipotent entity at one point did not really believe in a GOD.

Summary: People of a true faith in a everpresence higher power that is conscious were once atheist inside when they believed GOD to be some external GOD in a far off kingdom of heaven. Where as athiest never once truly viewed all they witness believing that it is all connected by an intelligent higher power.

My point is a true subscriber of faith can understand because of experience how atheists justify their belief, but atheists can not understand how a true subscriber of a faith justifies their belief because their is no experience to draw upon within their mind that correlates to experiencing everything with the belief GOD is here. The truth is the truth can only be experienced, and only be experienced when their mind has accepted a few prerequisites as facts. "The Law of Association" thing.

I appreciate your viewpoint, I just don't agree. This neither makes me more right nor more wrong than you. Just differences in opinions due to the fact we choose to interpret experiences slightly different. Thanks for your input.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Mayet
How do you define supreme being.

I think that's key. I think a definition of God would be a good place to start.

Because if someone were to ask if I believe in God, the first thing I would say is "It depends on what you mean by God."

If GOD is not aware of all things at all times and is not all knowing and all powerful and omnipotent and omnipresent, then it is not GOD. This holds true to the teachings of many religions on our planet.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If GOD is not aware of all things at all times and is not all knowing and all powerful and omnipotent and omnipresent, then it is not GOD.

See, in my mind, that's your perception of God. That's really just your opinion of God. Your definition of God.

This holds true to the teachings of many religions on our planet.

One of the many reasons I do not associate with any religion whatsoever. Religion is a man-made precept with man-made concepts. In my reasoning, that makes all religions of man, not of ‘God’.

God is.

Anything else is a human attempt at personifying a concept that may seem alien without any adjectives.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
God is.

Anything else is a human attempt at personifying a concept that may seem alien without any adjectives.

To me, "God Is" is also a human attempt to make some sort of difinitive statement about something of which I have no real idea. Because I'm not sure 'God Is'. If I can't say, by any words or ideas or thoughts, what God Is, how can I say, "God Is"? I mean, the second I say the word 'God', connotations abound.

It's like saying "Deraljah is". If there's no meaning, the statement makes no sense.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To me, "God Is" is also a human attempt to make some sort of difinitive statement about something of which I have no real idea. Because I'm not sure 'God Is'. If I can't say, by any words or ideas or thoughts, what God Is, how can I say, "God Is"? I mean, the second I say the word 'God', connotations abound.

If we accept the concept of God, then the furthest we can get from human interpretation is to solely accept that the concept exists, and no more.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sorry E. Teacher, if this is off topic. But I'm still not sure what responses you were trying to evoke or induce, these are simply my thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Nevertheless, I don't think it is possible to define God even for the purposes of someone else understanding what I mean by 'God,'

Even closer to what I'm thinking.

I think the closest I can come to defining 'God' is to say what it isn't for me. I have also tried different words, because for me to say that I believe in 'God' is misleading, because of what I think other people have in their minds. Like you said, if I say the word God, people think of their interpretation of God, when in reality, I don't believe in that at all.

Excactly. People can only integrate cognitive information using their own understanding of whatever subject matter is being discussed. Where as one might interpret the "prescription" to mean a doctor's given chemical for a set of symptoms or sickness/condition, others may interpret the word "prescription" to mean pre = before, scription = written, so they think it means before written.

Both are right within their perspectives.

The rest of this post is script from my PODcast, 'Why I don't believe in God':

There were several concepts covered in the movie (What the Bleep do We Know?) that really helped me to nail down some of my beliefs. One of them goes something like this:

The biggest mistake made by organized religion is in separating us from God. In making God a big father-type entity, who watches us and notes when we do bad and when we do good and keeps track and ultimately punishes or rewards us at the end of our lives.

.... I won’t say that I believe in God, simply because there are too many assumptions made by people . . .

Why then, let them define GOD for you? If a GOD exists we can easily determine GOD may not have wanted the same relationship with all of us, or we would have been created identically. This is a thought worth considering.

But I came to a very important understanding of myself and my beliefs when I thought about that travesty of organized religion has inspired. The travesty of separating ourselves from God and looking upon ourselves as lowly, unworthy, shameful, sinful creatures, while God is a perfect holy SEPERATE being.

Organized religion was organized by whom? Humanities interpretations differ in reference to GOD, but if GOD is not seperate from us the definition of GOD may start to be less contradictory to eachother's interpretations of GOD, then it creates a point of view and a state of mind capable of re-defining GOD, minus the objectivity and judgement associated with the current way organized religion defines GOD.

In the context that followed the last quote, above:

I just don’t buy that and never will.

I'm glad, and I agree you should not have to have such expectations forced down your belief intake. However if GOD is not seperate from us, then GOD must also be within organized religion, even if it be for the purpose of their learning (on a curve, perhaps).

The other concept:

The height of arrogance and the height of control was when man made God in his image.

This statement is either totally on the money, or totally B.S.. And, I say this because I know their are different ways to interpret the same statement that are totally dependant on the point of view of the individual.

As for the rest of your post, I agree humanity has attributed many of our own negative perceptions because it is what the observer (each individual) has known within themselves, therefore they choose to equate themselves (which is all they really know) to GOD. However, don't take the positives away from GOD. Not my positives. Your positives. God may want us to be true to ourselves first and foremost, then since we are true to ourselves, we can be true to God. Not to to my God, but to your God. Your accepted truths about what is good should define you God. Not me or anyone else. However if it were not for organized religion, the seed to question the existance of anything superior to mankind would not exist.


I truly and thoroughly enjoyed thinking on your points and agree with you on all of it, but also know it would be able to counter all your points with logical reasoning.

To clarify the purpose of the thread to me:
Explain why athiests know believers are wrong when they have no experience being a true believer.

Explain how Atheists are justified in their even making an arguement when it is apparent Atheists never believed in a God, but those who do believe have an insight into what it was not to believe in God.

It would be stimulating to hear and think about the replies.

At any rate, thanks again for the contribution. And, "What the Bleep Do We Know" is a good movie, if you get it. But, people are ultimatley only capable of seeing what it is they are looking for.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If GOD is not aware of all things at all times and is not all knowing and all powerful and omnipotent and omnipresent, then it is not GOD.

See, in my mind, that's your perception of God. That's really just your opinion of God. Your definition of God.

In my opinion an opinion would mean that assumptions were made based on accepted facts within my mind that may include false truths.

This holds true to the teachings of many religions on our planet.

One of the many reasons I do not associate with any religion whatsoever. Religion is a man-made precept with man-made concepts. In my reasoning, that makes all religions of man, not of ‘God’.

But, I'm not the one standing in judgment of the beliefs of over a trillion souls over the last 8,000 + years. I simply accept their must be truth in it because God exists. You accept their is no God because their beliefs existed in the form your opinion tells you they interpreted God, having never believed their was one in the first place.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]

I believe atheists perception of this subject and arguements made on their behalf present a viewpoint that those who are offering insight of God are perhaps threatening their freedoms and liberties. As though they stand to loose something positive by changing their beliefs.

I don't think this is necessarily the case.

What most atheists don't percieve is that they won't be less than they are. By changing their state of mind to incorporate an ever present consciousness that fits their own description of what a perfect deity would be in their every moment of life they will no longer form negative opinions.

Right now all atheists are still operating mentally by the one thing they have known to be true since the beginning of their observance of their environment. It is a tidbit of information passed down to you from our ancestors. It is information that is incorporated into their very genetic code, and contained within each and every cell that comprises their physical existance.

That undeniable accepted truth is: "Self Preservation". And it is that "Self Preserve" which means: "self before I serve" that makes non-believers first look for weakness and fault in others out of the FEAR created by the initial human experiences command of "Self Before I Serve" before making any attempt to look for the good first. People tend to impose their own standards and will upon the whole of all of it, instead of making themselves an extension of the will of anyone higher than the highest standard they know: The standards and expectations of man.

If atheists chose to believe in a higher power then what do they really stand to loose besides the not understanding? Fear will deminish. Their fear that binds and controls their perspectives, which in turn dictates how they consciously comprehend anything. Don't take my word for it. Examine and analyze your own dreams without the input of anyone else. What is your own subconscious trying to tell you? All information gathered by all senses and interpreted in the brain are first given to the subconscious mind automatically and without knowledge of it consciously. The part of the brain that operates and supports the "Self" or "Identity" of one's personality and opinions operates at a speed of 2,000 times per second where electricity passes from one brain cell to another which defines a bith of information as percieved by the mind. Now, the subconscious part of the mind operates at a speed of approximately 400,000,000,000 biths of information per second, without knowing it in the conscious mind. Beleiving in a God helps to gain access to the other 400,000,000,000 sparks of electricity. Ironic that 5,000 years ago YHWH was the name of the God of Thunder in regions in north Africa, and The mightiest King of Gods Zeus also was associated with electricity when one of his most divine powers were to throw thunderbolts from his hands. At any rate, atheists don't know what they stand to loose or gain. They assume they will loose something. But, what is it they stand to loose? Like treating others like you'd like to be treated and you being treated like you'd like to be treated when everyone on the planet already treats everyone else like they percieve everyone else treats them anyways is somehow threatening their pre-existing beliefs. Yes, everything will change, but it is only fear of change that binds atheist from considering believers points of view, where as believers understand the atheists point of view. No one born fully accepted the existance of God without at least one question. Whether they believed in a God to in the first place determined whether they got an answer at all.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
This statement would be true if the athiest did at one point truly believe in God and experience everything with the accepted (by their mind) precept of an omni-presence that is conscious just as people who truly believe in an omnipresent omnipotent entity at one point did not really believe in a GOD.

Im suprised you don't think they would have. In today's cultures(in alot of countries) religion is forced on children at a very young age. Even if someone became an Atheist as a teenager, they would still have experienced church, prayer, baptism, circumcision, and the conecpt of believing in an omnipresent omnipotent entity.(Assuming were talking about the Christian God)

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I appreciate your viewpoint, I just don't agree. Thanks for your input.

Thank you as well, I enjoy having discussions on these topics and find other people viewpoints helpful.(Most of the time)

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
If we accept the concept of God,

What concept of God? The concept of a man in the sky? The concept of an omnipresent spirit? The concept of a unity of all? The concept of a goddess? The concept of an omnipotent entity?

then the furthest we can get from human interpretation is to solely accept that the concept exists, and no more.

That's why I don't accept that the concept exists (for me - I know it does for others), because I have no clue. No idea, no concept of what or if God is. I just don't know.