Why do Atheists care about religion?

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

If i like to have faith and believe that there is a source to everything is that wrong?

Nothing is wrong with that as long as you recognise that you may be wrong. I have. My position is one of non-committal in absence of evidence. I'd love for a god to exist but I can't justify it to myself without evidence. With human limitations, evidence is the most important thing.

Yes that is what i am saying. I might be wrong but i don't know that yet. Nobody knows. Its still one opinion agains another.

Sometimes i do feel that i am wrong. But then something new turns up and i am back on track. That is whats so hard to explain or prove to some one else who has a totally different image or idea. It becomes personal.

reply to post by TruthParadox



Having feelings and faith is a fact. We do have feelings and we do have faith in something.

Proving what you feel and have faith in is quite hard to do. It becomes a personal opinion. That to is a fact.

reply to post by spy66


Well now that you've made yourself clear, and stated you may be wrong, I feel vindicated.

Shall we leave it at that?

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Having feelings and faith is a fact. We do have feelings and we do have faith in something.

Proving what you feel and have faith in is quite hard to do. It becomes a personal opinion. That to is a fact.

Opinions are like armpits.




.... Everybody has two of 'em and they stink.

reply to post by Welfhard



Hehe yeah that's one way to put it

I can also admit that when i read the Bible i hardly ever see the same explanation as most others do. I don't think any of us really do.
We read the same words from the same text but we hardly ever understand or imagine the same images.

reply to post by spy66


I think you need to rethink your use of the word image because it's misleading.

Image:

im⋅age /ˈɪmɪdʒ/ noun, verb, -aged, -ag⋅ing.

noun
-a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
-an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
-a mental representation; idea; conception.
-Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
-form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.
-counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.
-a symbol; emblem.
-the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.
-a type; embodiment: Red-faced and angry, he was the image of frustration.
-a description of something in speech or writing: Keats created some of the most beautiful images in the language.
-Rhetoric. a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor or a simile.
-an idol or representation of a deity: They knelt down before graven images.
-Mathematics. the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.
-Archaic. an illusion or apparition.

verb (used with object)
-to picture or represent in the mind; imagine; conceive.
-to make an image of; portray in sculpture, painting, etc.
-to project (photographs, film, etc.) on a surface: Familiar scenes were imaged on the screen.
-to reflect the likeness of; mirror.
-to set forth in speech or writing; describe.
-to symbolize; typify.
-to resemble.
-Informal. to create an image for (a company, public figure, etc.): The candidate had to be imaged before being put on the campaign trail.
-to transform (data) into an exact replica in a different form, as changing digital data to pixels for display on a CRT or representing a medical scan of a body part in digital form.


It's so non specific that it means different things to different people. Most people will conceptualise a photo or something similar, in which context you aren't actually talking about "god" at all, but an impression. The word imagination comes from the same root as 'image' yet imagination is not real.

Clarify your ideas, please.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Having feelings and faith is a fact. We do have feelings and we do have faith in something.

Proving what you feel and have faith in is quite hard to do. It becomes a personal opinion. That to is a fact.

Why do you assume everyone has your own personal mindset, please? It's "quite hard to do"? It's impossible to prove you have faith. A shyster can be as convincing as a "faithful" person, but be lying. So proof is impossible.

And not everyone needs the emotional crutch of faith. Many of us never needed it or outgrew it as we matured. And the trend continues to grow as we work our way out of the superstitions of the past.

reply to post by Welfhard


When i say that God made us in his image and not the other way around.

You can't use our definition of imagery. Because God doesn't look like us and we dont look like God. The image has a totally different meaning compared to what God is as a source.

But again this is only how i understand what God is.
God = Energy in my opinion. Therefor i mean the image has to be something else then a picture or a shape resemblance. The image in my opinion has to do with energy.

I don't really know how to put this in any better words then this sorry.

But again this is only what i think. I might be totally wrong.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66

When i say that God made us in his image and not the other way around.

You can't use our definition of imagery.

But you must use our definition of image, it's all we have. Plus you insist on saying "image".

You can't say 'image' then go on to say "but not our definition of image" is frustrating, stupid and just plain time wasting. If you are going to use a word, don't blame people for using it's real semantic meaning.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

When i say that God made us in his image and not the other way around.

You can't use our definition of imagery.

But you must use our definition of image, it's all we have. Plus you insist on saying "image".

You can't say 'image' then go on to say "but not our definition of image" is frustrating, stupid and just plain time wasting. If you are going to use a word, don't blame people for using it's real semantic meaning.

I know but.

God = Energy in my opinion. Therefor i mean the image has to be something else then a picture or a shape resemblance. The image in my opinion has to do with energy or call it spiritual feelings towards something unknown.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66I know but.

God = Energy in my opinion. Therefor i mean the image has to be something else then a picture or a shape resemblance. The image in my opinion has to do with energy.

You could just say "soul" or "spirit", that would, I think, make your point better. Just a suggestion.

reply to post by spy66

God = Energy in my opinion. Therefor i mean the image has to be something else then a picture or a shape resemblance. The image in my opinion has to do with energy or call it spiritual.

"Image" is completely useless at describing what you are trying to say because "picture or a shape resemblance" is exactly what "image" means.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

God = Energy in my opinion. Therefor i mean the image has to be something else then a picture or a shape resemblance. The image in my opinion has to do with energy or call it spiritual.

"Image" is completely useless at describing what you are trying to say because "picture or a shape resemblance" is exactly what "image" means.

I know but is it what God meant by creating us in his image!
That's what's important here. You have to explore both sides depending on who is using the definition.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by spy66I know but.

God = Energy in my opinion. Therefor i mean the image has to be something else then a picture or a shape resemblance. The image in my opinion has to do with energy.

You could just say "soul" or "spirit", that would, I think, make your point better. Just a suggestion.

Yeah but its not easy to think of everything at once hehe

reply to post by spy66


If god truly did "make us in his image", it means we are representative of who or what he is, that is the semantic meaning of "to make in his own image."

That goes without saying. You do not need to drag the word 'image' into every discussion about the nature of god because it is irrelevant when you are not referencing us. If you talk about us and god, say image. When you just talk about God, do not say "image", there is no point.

Originally posted by spy66Yeah but its not easy to think of everything at once hehe

One good post would be worth ten hasty ones. And less confusing.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

If god truly did "make us in his image", it means we are representative of who or what he is, that is the semantic meaning of "to make in his own image."

Well according to how i understand it. God didn't create us truly in his image. That would make God a person or a being. And i don't believe God is a person or a being. But energy.

We are energy as well. But it all depends on how you see it. Or image it.

You can decide for your self how you would like to see it. That's OK with me. But i like to go further. I dont limit my self to Google's definition of image.

But i guess this would mean i am imagining by your standard than





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
Well according to how i understand it. God didn't create us truly in his image. That would make God a person or a being. And i don't believe God is a person or a being. But energy.

We are energy as well. But it all depends on how you see it. Or image it.

It doesn't have to mean that god IS human, you are implying that "in his image" means physically, when it doesn't say that. It could mean any number of other things - I don't know, I wasn't around to ask the guy writing that part of the bible.

You could always disregard it. Most, if not all christians disregard somethings, and since this bit doesn't really mean much and is so disputed, just put it down to human incompetence.

I dont limit my self to Google's definition of image.

But i guess this would mean i am imagining by your standard than

Actually I went and got a dictionary for that, I don't use google for defining things.

Originally posted by WelfhardActually I went and got a dictionary for that, I don't use google for defining things.

Bartleby.com is useful. I go there frequently. Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by spy66
Well according to how i understand it. God didn't create us truly in his image. That would make God a person or a being. And i don't believe God is a person or a being. But energy.

We are energy as well. But it all depends on how you see it. Or image it.

It doesn't have to mean that god IS human, you are implying that "in his image" means physically, when it doesn't say that. It could mean any number of other things - I don't know, I wasn't around to ask the guy writing that part of the bible.

You could always disregard it. Most, if not all christians disregard somethings, and since this bit doesn't really mean much and is so disputed, just put it down to human incompetence.

I dont limit my self to Google's definition of image.

But i guess this would mean i am imagining by your standard than

Actually I went and got a dictionary for that, I don't use google for defining things.

No you get me wrong. What i am implying is that people think that since God made us in his image they think God is a being.

And since God has a name people think God is a being.And because they call God: He. Him. Father and so on. People gets the image of God being a man.

This is what i mean by getting the image wrong.

Its not the image i get of God at all.

You can argue your image all you want because you dont see the image that i see. Its probably as simple as that. Maybe this is the reason we have believer and non believers.

I could probably try to expalin this to you for ever and you would never get it or see the image that i see of God.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]