A different version of a god

[and2premiere]

I hope people don't mind me making another thread. I just have so much I want to learn (discuss).

But, from what I can gather, atheism is the rejection of a "traditional" god. I would guess that means gods presented to us through religions.

I'm a big fan of Dan Brown's books. I know this is fiction, but who says fiction can't have some good things to say

"But the church is not the only enlightened soul on the planet!  We all seek God in different ways. Religions evolve! The mind finds answers, the heart grapples with new truths. God is not some omnipotent authority looking down from above, threatening to throw us into a pit of fire if we disobey. God is the energy that flows through the synapses of our nervous system and the chambers of our hearts! God is in all things!!" Angels and Demons (pg 534-535)

Is this something that one who calls himself an atheist can accept. I know just because it has god in it does not mean we have to reject it. Even though this lady (the person saying this in the book) uses the word "God," I think she hits it right on the spot.

Of course this will be subjected to rigorous scientific anlalyses before it will be accepted.

[JillSwift]

"But the church is not the only enlightened soul on the planet! We all seek God in different ways. Religions evolve! The mind finds answers, the heart grapples with new truths. God is not some omnipotent authority looking down from above, threatening to throw us into a pit of fire if we disobey. God is the energy that flows through the synapses of our nervous system and the chambers of our hearts! God is in all things!!" Angels and Demons (pg 534-535)

This sounds like Panentheism. It still posits something "supernatural", and that term is meaningless as it describes nothing.

If the character means natural energy, then what's the point of calling them "god"? What does deification of natural processes add to our understanding of them?

from what I can gather, atheism is the rejection of a "traditional" god

I am an atheist for three reasons:

• There is no evidence for a god or gods.
• There is no need for a god hypothesis to explain any part of the universe, including its origin.
• Definitions for god are either internally inconsistent (and thus describe nothing) or make predictions that are easily testable and fail to meet those tests.

[and2premiere]

i guess my point is if we take the god out, and just refer to it as a constant force that moves the universe and flows withing all of us. Would that be considered a "god?"

sorry if its confusing.

[JillSwift]

i guess my point is if we take the god out, and just refer to it as a constant force that moves the universe and flows withing all of us. Would that be considered a "god?"

If we take the god out, then... is anything left to call god? No.

This is what I'm on about with "god" essentially being a meaningless word. The concept of "god" just doesn't hold water, and adds nothing to our understanding of the world around us - and in fact often interferes with that understanding.

sorry if its confusing.

It's only confusing so long as one insists on holding contradictory ideas.

[curiosityandthecat]

The whole reason we have "God" is a leftover need for the anthropomorphic father figure. It's "God" because it has a consciousness (in theory). It has direction. Wants. Plans.

An "energy", as Jill pointed out, doesn't fit that bill. People just call it "God" because they don't want to be seen as atheists (evil) or New Agers (crazy).

[and2premiere]

Cool...
 What about hope? Is it logical to have. It would be the desire of an event that is improbable to be probable. As an atheist, is this something that would be work with the disbelief in gods. I know atheism doesn't have set rules, but I find it hard to figure out what of my beliefs are still held on to the concepts seeded into my life growing up with religion.

...i was told i don't understand probably and possible, so if anyone wants to school me, please do.

What is there to believe in when there is nobody to tell you what to believe in? This is what my friend who is scared to stop believing because there is no alternative given to him. He practically think w/o god there is no point in living in this world.

[curiosityandthecat]

Cool...
 What about hope? Is it logical to have. It would be the desire of an event that is improbable to be probable. As an atheist, is this something that would be work with the disbelief in gods. I know atheism doesn't have set rules, but I find it hard to figure out what of my beliefs are still held on to the concepts seeded into my life growing up with religion.

...i was told i don't understand probably and possible, so if anyone wants to school me, please do.

What is there to believe in when there is nobody to tell you what to believe in? This is what my friend who is scared to stop believing because there is no alternative given to him. He practically think w/o god there is no point in living in this world.

This is what I always tell people: this life is not practice.

Let them mull it over a while.

[and2premiere]

good article on hope with atheism:

http://www.travisjmorgan.com/blog/2009/ ... -and-hope/

[JillSwift]

Cool...
 What about hope? Is it logical to have. It would be the desire of an event that is improbable to be probable. As an atheist, is this something that would be work with the disbelief in gods. I know atheism doesn't have set rules, but I find it hard to figure out what of my beliefs are still held on to the concepts seeded into my life growing up with religion.



Finally, you don't need to believe in anything to be content and hopeful. If you really want to, though, you can believe in your own capacity for good, and humanity's overall capacity for good. Believe that it seems bad out there because we pay the bad more attention - there are no news stories about the small kindnesses we do for one another daily. The greatest thing about that is, you can actually prove it to yourself. You don't need faith, and thus will be impervious to a crisis of faith.

[Sophus]

Hope as a feeling can be rational if the lack of it will hinder you from achieving a certain internal goal. The reason of madness. Good things can come from hope when it brings about personal ambition. But outside of that I think it's completely illogical if evidence suggests a positive outcome is next to impossible.

[JillSwift]

Hope as a feeling can be rational if the lack of it will hinder you from achieving a certain internal goal. The reason of madness. Good things can come from hope when it brings about personal ambition. But outside of that I think it's completely illogical if evidence suggests a positive outcome is next to impossible.

That's where one has to be aware of the fine line between hope and denial.  

[Sophus]

Hope as a feeling can be rational if the lack of it will hinder you from achieving a certain internal goal. The reason of madness. Good things can come from hope when it brings about personal ambition. But outside of that I think it's completely illogical if evidence suggests a positive outcome is next to impossible.

That's where one has to be aware of the fine line between hope and denial.  

True. So long as there's a hunger for truth and knowledge that is prioritized over all feelings the outcome will be a reasonable hope. For example there's no problem in hoping to achieve X but it may be absurd to think you can accomplish Y.

But perhaps what's reasonable or not depends on what you want to achieve in life. If happiness is ideal then hope is certainly a reasonable goal, while not always a logical one. If truth is more important than a feeling, which is it for me, then one will not take resort to devastation without hope.

[JillSwift]

True. So long as there's a hunger for truth and knowledge that is prioritized over all feelings the outcome will be a reasonable hope. For example there's no problem in hoping to achieve X but it may be absurd to think you can accomplish Y.

But perhaps what's reasonable or not depends on what you want to achieve in life. If happiness is ideal then hope is certainly a reasonable goal, while not always a logical one. If truth is more important than a feeling, which is it for me, then one will not take resort to devastation without hope.

Hmm. I think here we need a definitional split: There's hope as in the idea that a goal is achievable (even if unlikely), which is the hope I meant in my previous posts. Then there's that weird, hand-wavey vague "hope" that I'm not sure about, that is in itself a goal.

Is it a synonym for happiness or contentment? Is it about life having some sort of intrinsic meaning or purpose? Or denial of the totality and permanence of death?

If it's any or all of those things - I'm probably no help at all. It took me a long while to get over "purposeful thinking", that is, trying to assign purpose to things which have no intrinsic purpose. I learned only through will that life is purposeless, and requires none to exist - and that individual human life is granted purpose only by that individual. That the specter of death does not mean I have to - or should - shrug off my own chosen meaning and purpose for this moment of my life. It's a shift of manner of thinking, and all changes of that sort are difficult, even tumultuous, but do-able.

For anyone trying to let go of religion and theism, it helps to consider that all "god" ever was for these purposes, was someone long dead giving meaning and purpose to people via an imagined god - and now that you're aware that the god is imaginary, you can grant yourself that same meaning and purpose just as that human did for you from long ago.

[bowmore]

Is this something that one who calls himself an atheist can accept. I know just because it has god in it does not mean we have to reject it.

A "god" has always been and will always be a human concept. The mere success of this concept, combined with its prevalence, forces us to acknowledge its importance for humankind. I remain sceptical at the thought that humankind can do without this concept, in whatever form. I find atheists, like myself, are often strong minded people who don't rely on the harbouring illusion a theistic religion may offer, but it would be wrong, I think, to assume every individual can bear this life without it.

That doesn't mean we should allow religion to dictate the life of every individual, and the separation of church and state should remain at the heart of any modern democracy.

What can be said is that the religions that are currently dominating the theistic spectrum, are hopelessly outdated. They cling to outdated dogma, and long disproved metaphysics. Religion needs to 'evolve' to be able to cope with reality as it currently is known to us, and in doing so will prove to be of better service to it's prime target audience, the insecure and weak.

[Sophus]

Hmm. I think here we need a definitional split: There's hope as in the idea that a goal is achievable (even if unlikely), which is the hope I meant in my previous posts. Then there's that weird, hand-wavey vague "hope" that I'm not sure about, that is in itself a goal.

I understand what you're saying and I completely agree. This is an oddly difficult concept to express.The problem is "hope" is applicable in several different types of scenarios.

For anyone trying to let go of religion and theism, it helps to consider that all "god" ever was for these purposes, was someone long dead giving meaning and purpose to people via an imagined god - and now that you're aware that the god is imaginary, you can grant yourself that same meaning and purpose just as that human did for you from long ago.

Existentialism and Nihilism! I too share these beliefs. The paradox that life has no meaning means it has infinite meanings. Whatever your mind can wrought it into being, so it shall be.