How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God

[curiosityandthecat]

Okay, tell me, atheists here, what do you think about the higher power accepted by some scientists and the grand architect of the universe accepted by Masons.

Remember, I am talking about the concepts, not the presence of anything in factual existence corresponding to the concepts.


Please also contribute your ideas on how to revise the concept of the Christian God, okay?

So that it will be acceptable to you as atheists, that is namely the concept only, please, but not the existence to be corresponding to the concept.


You will tell me that atheists as you are you don't have any belief in God or gods.

But you still have a brain which can think about what kind of a concept you want for a Christian God, if you don't like the concept of the Christian God known to every Christian who knows his Christian faith.

You want me to repeat again what is the common concept of God for all Christians?

Here:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.





Yrreg

Don't conflate something like physics with an anthropomorphic god.

Also, don't pull that M5 modal logic crap about how if you can imagine something as being true in a possible universe then it must be true.

Also also, it doesn't matter what atheists want for the concept of a Christian god (if that even makes sense). It'd be like discussing what a reader wants about an author's characters: not his or her responsibility or place. If Christians want to worship a toaster and consider that god, fine. They're still wrong.

You're concerned with pointless details.

The best way atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God is to make them atheists.

[/thread]

[Will]

Okay, shall we now go or return to the topic of this thread, "How atheists can help theists to revise their concept of God?"

I don't know that we should have any say, to be honest. It's your creator, do with him as you wish. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable if a Hindu person asked you to help shape the definition of Shiva? The way atheists conceptualize god is very similar to the way most Christians would conceptualize Shiva: it's a deity that someone else worships.

I mentioned that scientists, some of them, which some can be many or few, accept the concept of a higher power.

And I also mentioned that Masons accept the concept of the grand architect of the universe.

What do scientists understand by a higher power?

Your syntax is interesting.

About 8% of scientists in the US are Christian, if Neil deGrasse Tyson was correct. As to how their faith and knowledge interact, you'd have to ask them. Maybe they've found a method of compartmentalization, maybe they've found a way for them to even compliment each other, or maybe they live in turmoil, I really don't know. I suspect it's a combination.

I have not read on them writing about their concept of a higher power, but from my knowledge of the English language it is obvious that it is a power (search English dictionaries please if you have to on what is power) that is more than any humans know about, say, like the Christian God or perhaps lesser, but still higher than any power above the powers atheists know and live under, for example, the law of universal gravitation.

About the grand architect of the universe of the Masons, again I have not read on what they with great precision mean by that designation, but I am sure anyone with a knowledge of English that enables them to read newspapers intelligently know what it means, namely, to put it in simple concrete English, builder of the universe (see universe in English dictionaries for people who don't know what other peoples using English are talking about with the word universe).

Okay, tell me, atheists here, what do you think about the higher power accepted by some scientists and the grand architect of the universe accepted by Masons.

I think it's based on an ancient archetype, I think there are common traits, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, along with the role of "Creator", which suggests massive complexity and supernaturality (I know it's not a word, but say it out loud a few times). The concept really doesn't matter all that much to me personally.

Please also contribute your ideas on how to revise the concept of the Christian God, okay?

I think that pantheism is an interesting way to conceptualize the Christian god. Pantheism is the belief system that god is the universe; every bit of matter, energy, and scientific principle in existence is god. But it doesn't necesarily make the concept any more or less palatable, speaking as an atheist.

What would be your goal of re-conceptualizing god for atheists? Wouldn't that be like re-conceptualizing Zeus for Christians? Would revising the concept of Zeus do anything for you personally?

[Karras]

Give me one people who are pushing their views on what society.

Do you live under a rock Gerry?

You can hardly miss some representatives of Christianity pushing their views. Here's a few examples:

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Not that it is restricted to Christianity, though it does seem to be largely them and Islam who are so aggressive in their recruitment tactics. Jews typically seem to be happy as a more exclusive club and you don't tend to hear much out of Sikhs or Hindus either, at least not outside of their native communities.

I am in the Philippines, as I said of Chinese ethnicity but Philippine nationality.

We have a democracy here and I learned in school that in a democracy people can talk about anything that is not libelous on other people, but don't touch anyone's nose without his permission, and about political, religious, moral, whatever, artistic, even how to raise kids, they can talk until their lungs get exhausted or write until their fingers get numb, and get their views published any ways and means they can command, but the moment anyone starts kicking any other person to get his views put into practice, he is going to get arrested and put behind bars, for the safety of society and yes the preservation of democracy in our country.

And we in the Philippines try to emulate Americans in the practice of democracy, though we put more emphasis on demos and less on kratia, that is the trouble with our peoples here I grant you that.




Yrreg

I assume you have rocks in the Philippines, Gerry?

I am fully aware of freedom of speech and that concept does allow people to try and push their view onto others. Unless you are living under one of your Philippino rocks, you cannot miss the fact that Christians and other religious denominations often do try and push their views onto others. If you think that this will get you arrested, you clearly do not understand freedom of speech at all.

[Yrreg]

Let me ask you this, do you really think that Christians would accept their God being redefined into something else, just to pander to atheists?

[...]

I am a rational theist and a Christian.

To be honest I am rational first, theist second, and Chrsitian third.


So, will you just as an atheist give me some ideas how you want the Christian God to be revised as to the concept?



Yrreg

[Karras]

Let me ask you this, do you really think that Christians would accept their God being redefined into something else, just to pander to atheists?

[...]

I am a rational theist and a Christian.

To be honest I am rational first, theist second, and Chrsitian third.


So, will you just as an atheist give me some ideas how you want the Christian God to be revised as to the concept?



Yrreg

Do you speak for Christians, Gerry?

[Whitney]

Yrreg, well, I really wanted you to respond to McQ's comments in the other thread so that we know you understand why you were issued previous warnings.  Anyway, just make sure you read over the rules and avoid making assumptions about what atheists do and don't believe (being that the only thing all atheists have in common is non-belief in a god).

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

You don't like that concept of the Christian God? Then tell me what concepts you want of the Christian God or how you would like to revise it.

Well, the Christian God is so much more than that...what you described above is more like the deist concept of god.  Christians (and any other religion) have to tack on various qualities and actions to their gods.  The Christian God is also claimed to be loving, jealous, vengeful, the creator of good and evil, a part of the "trinity," etc. etc.  Its these details that make the Christian God not only nonsensical but also something which could be considered to be very anthropomorphic (a quality we would expect for a god concept which is created by humans) and unjust.  If you chop down the Christian God to being only your above mentioned definition, it wouldn't be the Christian God concept, it would just be what the word "god" is intended to refer to.

[Yrreg]

I get the impression here that as atheists you have the commitment to not even think about how you can revise the concept of God of the Christians?


Is that being scientific?

Suppose you try the scientific method on the concept, just- the concept, and see how far you will get to the analysis of the concept of God from Christians.

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Yrreg

[Karras]

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Your definition is woefully lacking as a description of the Christian God, Gerry.

Now, please answer my question. Do you speak for Christians?

[curiosityandthecat]

I get the impression here that as atheists you have the commitment to not even think about how you can revise the concept of God of the Christians?


Is that being scientific?

Suppose you try the scientific method on the concept, just- the concept, and see how far you will get to the analysis of the concept of God from Christians.

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Yrreg

Did you not read my post? In this thread and the others you've participated in, you have conveniently ignored any post that may answer your questions, and instead simply moved on to another, similar question or claimed to want to start over.

[Yrreg]

I speak for myself as a rational theist Christian.

Here is my concept of God as a rational theist Christian:

God is the maker of everything in the totality of existence including the physical universe, and the author of the scheme of intelligent order prevailing in it.

Whitney, you say that the Christian God is more than that.

Well, you tell me what is more than that in my concept of the Christian God which you want removed, okay?

And I know your self-description as atheist, you lack belief in God or gods whatever.

But I am still telling you that  you have got to know, examine, what you are lacking in, what is that thing you want to be lacking in, in order to be sure that you are not in contact in any way and by any means with what you want to be lacking in.



Yrreg

[Karras]

I speak for myself as a rational theist Christian.

Then Gerry, perhaps you can tell us what value there is in discussing it with you when you only speak for yourself and have already repeatedly demonstrated that you are not looking for a rational discussion?

[curiosityandthecat]

And I know your self-description as atheist, you lack belief in God or gods whatever.

But I am still telling you that  you have got to know, examine, what you are lacking in, what is that thing you want to be lacking in, in order to be sure that you are not in contact in any way and by any means with what you want to be lacking in.

And there we have it.

Everyone should recognize this for what it is.

[AlP]

Here are my revisions.

God is a paradox; He is nothing. The paradox is that nothing actually exists.
As nothing, He is Invisible.
As nothing, He is Omnipresent. Nothing exists everywhere.
As nothing, He is a cause of every event. He is the only cause that does not affect the outcome.
As nothing, He is Eternal and Immortal. He has existed and will exist for all time.
As nothing, He is the only thing that existed before time began.
As nothing, He is Immutable. His essence does not change because, paradoxically, he has no essence.
As nothing, He is Love. Love is also nothing.
As nothing, He is Spirit. Spirit is also nothing.
As nothing, He is Truth. He is incapable of infidelity.
As nothing, He is Infinite. It is meaningless to ask how many nothings there are. He is beyond counting.
As nothing, He is Holy. As in hole.

Thanks.

[Yrreg]

I try to remain within the thread which I have started.

If you feel that you have a message or a question for me which is relevant to the thread's topic, and I did not give it any attention, perhaps you want to give me the link to that question or repeat it here.

If your question was addressed to me in another thread, please just give me the link to it.



I cannot be answering every question people bring up here if it is not of any connection to the topic on hand.

If you want to tell me that I am a troll, a preacher, incoherent in English, or uncivil with my language here, please report me to the powers that be here.

About my incoherency in English, I sympathize with you whoever you are who have this complaint.

Perhaps you can suggest to the powers that be here in this forum, that people aspiring to write here should first pass a test on minimal skill in regard to coherency in written English.




Yrreg

[Karras]

I try to remain within the thread which I have started.

If you feel that you have a message or a question for me which is relevant to the thread's topic, and I did not give it any attention, perhaps you want to give me the link to that question or repeat it here.

If your question was addressed to me in another thread, please just give me the link to it.



I cannot be answering every question people bring up here if it is not of any connection to the topic on hand.

If you want to tell me that I am a troll, a preacher, incoherent in English, or uncivil with my language here, please report me to the powers that be here.

About my incoherency in English, I sympathize with you whoever you are who have this complaint.

Perhaps you can suggest to the powers that be here in this forum, that people aspiring to write here should first pass a test on minimal skill in regard to coherency in written English.




Yrreg

Oh, drop the martyr syndrome!

You (for the most part) refuse to engage other posters in discussion. You seek to set the rules for your threads, yet forums such as this do not work that way. You occasionally preach. Need I go on?