Happy Atheist Forum

Doesn't it limit God to refer to God as a "he" or as a "who?"

It would be easier for me to buy the idea of God if God was an "it," an impersonal it, but calling God a male with a personality, in other words a "who," I'm just not interested. It sounds preposterous.

It makes no sense to me that God would have a gender and a personality. It makes me want to ask if he shops at Whole Foods.

Quote from: "i_am_i"It makes me want to ask if he shops at Whole Foods.

Sometimes, but he doesn't like to queue.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "i_am_i"It makes me want to ask if he shops at Whole Foods.

Sometimes, but he doesn't like to queue.

Yeah, but...

Come on! I'm trying to be serious here!

I think that the widely accepted view of God by the theological community is of God as an it, but most people refer to it as a him because it's always been done and because it's easier to conceive of something like that.

I think it's just an easier way for people to relate to him. Think of the whole "our father who art in heaven" dealio - everybody's got a dad, so they can relate to the father thing. Brings along all the paternal associations as well, like him caring, reprimanding, encouraging, etc...

People have a hard time relating to something they don't understand, so you'd think they wouldn't be able to relate to God at all given that no one can understand him (him being extradimensional and all that jazz). But if you pose him as your dad (or maybe - with that big white beard - he's your granddad) then it's a lot easier to think that you understand him/it/whatever.

Now that I think about, there's the passage Genesis 1:26

Quote26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So that would make the short answer to the question "because the Bible says so" and the longer answer would be because people like to anthropomorphize things. He has a personality because people give him one, and that personality is just as fickle as any regular Joe Human.

So what you're saying OP, is that you *want* to have a God, but just don't like his personality?

Quote from: "Goathead"So what you're saying OP, is that you *want* to have a God, but just don't like his personality?

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that the deist god (no personality, doesn't answer prayer, doesn't intervene in human affairs, etc.) is far more believable than the theist god (has a personality, answers prayer, intervenes in human affairs, etc.) Nowhere does he say or his words imply that he wants to believe in a god, just that if he did, he'd probably be a deist.

By the way, how can you not have a world-view?

Gen 1:26 also has a clear implication that God is more than one entity.

I don't think it's quite that clear.  I don't know a lot about ancient Hebrew culture or language, but I would be willing to bet that people sometimes referred to themselves in the plural form.  Royalty do/did it in other cultures.

Well....HE had sex with at least one human woman. Then again, shim could have been an hermaphrodite?

C'mon...I left that waaaaaay open...*chucklin*

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Gen 1:26 also has a clear implication that God is more than one entity.

Yeah, I never really noticed that until I looked that verse up the other day. Very interesting!

What's the new avatar, btw?  

Quote from: "i_am_i"Doesn't it limit God to refer to God as a "he" or as a "who?"

It would be easier for me to buy the idea of God if God was an "it," an impersonal it, but calling God a male with a personality, in other words a "who," I'm just not interested. It sounds preposterous.

It makes no sense to me that God would have a gender and a personality. It makes me want to ask if he shops at Whole Foods.

If you're talking about the Christian god, then there can be no doubt that both YHVH and Jesus are "he."  Jesus specifically calls YHVH his father, and tells his followers to address him as "Our father, who art in heaven."  As for the Holy Ghost, the gender is not specified as far as I know, but given the patriarchal nature of Christianity I imagine that the third element of the trinity is male as well.  For an entertaining insight into the personality of YHVH, I highly recommend God: A Biography (http://www.amazon.com/God-Biography-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685) by Jack Miles.

QuoteFrom JackMiles.com (http://www.jackmiles.com/Home/books/god-a-biography):

What sort of a "person" is God? What is his "life story"?

Is it possible to approach him not as an object of religious reverence, but as the protagonist of the world's greatest book--as a character who possesses all the depths, contradictions, and ambiguities of a Hamlet?

This is the task that Jack Miles--a former Jesuit trained in religious studies and Near Eastern languages--accomplishes with such brilliance and originality in God: A Biography.

Using the Hebrew Bible as his text, Miles shows us a God who evolves through his relationship with man, the image who in time becomes his rival.

Here is the Creator who nearly destroys his chief creation: the bloodthirsty warrior and the protector of the downtrodden; the lawless law-giver; the scourge and the penitent.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Goathead"So what you're saying OP, is that you *want* to have a God, but just don't like his personality?

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that the deist god (no personality, doesn't answer prayer, doesn't intervene in human affairs, etc.) is far more believable than the theist god (has a personality, answers prayer, intervenes in human affairs, etc.) Nowhere does he say or his words imply that he wants to believe in a god, just that if he did, he'd probably be a deist.

By the way, how can you not have a world-view?

No he's not; he's saying he wants to believe in God but can't bring himself to because God has a personality that he doesn't like.
Also world-view is a matter of perception; hence why I don't have one.

Quote from: "Goathead"No he's not; he's saying he wants to believe in God but can't bring himself to because God has a personality that he doesn't like.

First, hello and welcome to HAF, Goathead.  Or should I say, "welcome back?"

People can play "interpreter" all day long, but since J is an active member of this forum, I don't see any point to it.  J is quite capable of telling us what the intention of the OP is.

Quote from: "Goathead"Also world-view is a matter of perception; hence why I don't have one.

I find this statement puzzling.  It implies that you don't have any perceptions, thus no world view.  This doesn't make sense to me.  All human beings have perceptions, and "view the world."  Could you explain what you mean with a bit more clarity? If you mean that your world view is neutral, that's an entirely different thing, and you should just say so.

Quote from: "Goathead"[...]Also world-view is a matter of perception; hence why I don't have one.

You don't have a perception?

Quote from: "Recusant"First, hello and welcome to HAF, Goathead.  Or should I say, "welcome back?"

That would be more appropriate yes.

Quote from: "Recusant"People can play "interpreter" all day long,

Please define what you mean by "playing interpreter".

Quote from: "Recusant"but since J is an active member of this forum, I don't see any point to it.  J is quite capable of telling us what the intention of the OP is.

Are you implying that I am not?

Quote from: "Recusant"I find this statement puzzling.  It implies that you don't have any perceptions, thus no world view.  This doesn't make sense to me.  All human beings have perceptions, and "view the world."  Could you explain what you mean with a bit more clarity? If you mean that your world view is neutral, that's an entirely different thing, and you should just say so.

Wrong, I do have perceptions, or it would be more accurate to say that we all perceive. But that doesn't mean I have a world view.

I merely point out that since i_am_i/J is an active member of the forum, to spend time interpreting the original post, and disputing those interpretations as if we couldn't simply ask the original poster for clarification is rather silly, in my opinion.

Regarding your world view, or lack of one, I think I understand a little better now.  In your original statement it seems I misinterpreted

Quote from: "Goathead"Also world-view is a matter of perception; hence why I don't have one.

and I'm glad that you clarified.  You say you don't have a world view, and I'm not going to tell you that you do.  But let's look at the definition of the term--

Merriam-Webster equates "worldview" with "weltanschauung," and defines it thus:

QuoteFrom Merriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltanschauung?show=0&t=1290535944):

"a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint"

I imagine that since you say that you perceive the world (how could you not, after all, as a sentient being?) you would agree that you have a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world.  So perhaps you're saying that you don't subscribe to a specific standpoint.  Yet you have expressed opinions in this forum.  How is one able to form opinions without having a specific standpoint upon which to form them?  I'm truly curious about this topic, and am not particularly trying to give you a hard time.  I honestly want to understand why it is that you say you have no world view.  Thank you for your patience.

Quote from: "Goathead"

Quote from: "Recusant"First, hello and welcome to HAF, Goathead.  Or should I say, "welcome back?"

That would be more appropriate yes.

Quote from: "Recusant"People can play "interpreter" all day long,

Please define what you mean by "playing interpreter".

Quote from: "Recusant"but since J is an active member of this forum, I don't see any point to it.  J is quite capable of telling us what the intention of the OP is.

Are you implying that I am not?

Quote from: "Recusant"I find this statement puzzling.  It implies that you don't have any perceptions, thus no world view.  This doesn't make sense to me.  All human beings have perceptions, and "view the world."  Could you explain what you mean with a bit more clarity? If you mean that your world view is neutral, that's an entirely different thing, and you should just say so.

Wrong, I do have perceptions, or it would be more accurate to say that we all perceive. But that doesn't mean I have a world view.

If you have perceptions of the world, then you're viewing the world. I don't understand how you couldn't have a world-view.

Quote from: "Goathead"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Goathead"So what you're saying OP, is that you *want* to have a God, but just don't like his personality?

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that the deist god (no personality, doesn't answer prayer, doesn't intervene in human affairs, etc.) is far more believable than the theist god (has a personality, answers prayer, intervenes in human affairs, etc.) Nowhere does he say or his words imply that he wants to believe in a god, just that if he did, he'd probably be a deist.

By the way, how can you not have a world-view?

No he's not; he's saying he wants to believe in God but can't bring himself to because God has a personality that he doesn't like.

Is that absolutely what you think I'm saying? Man!

For the record, I don't want to believe in anything, I don't believe in anything, especially an anthropomorphized super-hero neurotic deity.  

You, of course, are free to want to believe whatever you want to believe.

Quote from: "i_am_i"For the record, I don't want to believe in anything, I don't believe in anything, especially an anthropomorphized super-hero neurotic deity.

Just curious: how can you not believe in anything?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "i_am_i"For the record, I don't want to believe in anything, I don't believe in anything, especially an anthropomorphized super-hero neurotic deity.

Just curious: how can you not believe in anything?

You either know...or don't know.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "i_am_i"For the record, I don't want to believe in anything, I don't believe in anything, especially an anthropomorphized super-hero neurotic deity.

Just curious: how can you not believe in anything?

You either know...or don't know.

We don't "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet we all (well, I'm assuming we all) believe it will.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"We don't "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet we all (well, I'm assuming we all) believe it will.

Not quite. I don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. But due to my personal experience (and others) along with history, I THINK the sun will rise tomorrow (due to various laws of probability etc., etc.). As it gets lighter outside, I know the sun is rising, even though I can't see it yet. When the sun finally rises, then I will KNOW the sun rose.
I do not need to believe the sun is rising, or rose.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"We don't "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet we all (well, I'm assuming we all) believe it will.

Not quite. I don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. But due to my personal experience (and others) along with history, I THINK the sun will rise tomorrow (due to various laws of probability etc., etc.). As it gets lighter outside, I know the sun is rising, even though I can't see it yet. When the sun finally rises, then I will KNOW the sun rose.
I do not need to believe the sun is rising, or rose.

What's the difference between thinking the sun will rise, and believing the sun will rise?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"What's the difference between thinking the sun will rise, and believing the sun will rise?

The support behind the claim.

Belief that the sun will rise requires none. Expecting the sun to rise, or thinking that it will, requires at least some. For instance, the abovementioned probability seen through the eyes of history.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"What's the difference between thinking the sun will rise, and believing the sun will rise?

The support behind the claim.

Belief that the sun will rise requires none. Expecting the sun to rise, or thinking that it will, requires at least some. For instance, the abovementioned probability seen through the eyes of history.

Okay, but even if you do have support behind the claim that the sun will rise, you still believe it will rise -- you just have a very, very good reason to believe so.

I know for a fact that the sun will not rise tomorrow because the sun does not rise. It doesn't go down either. The earth, orbiting around the sun, turns and only parts of it are directly exposed to the sun at any given time. Everyone knows that.

If the Sun goes dark while my side is facing it, I'll make a post about it.
We all know the day starts East of New Zealand and moves West, so you'll have heaps of notice, so don't worry.
I wonder what section would be best for this post?

I wonder what became of Goathead.

It was an expression. Also, you can't possibly be one-hundred percent certain that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

Didn't you hear? He got banned for a week; possibly forever.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"What's the difference between thinking the sun will rise, and believing the sun will rise?

The support behind the claim.

Belief that the sun will rise requires none. Expecting the sun to rise, or thinking that it will, requires at least some. For instance, the abovementioned probability seen through the eyes of history.

Okay, but even if you do have support behind the claim that the sun will rise, you still believe it will rise -- you just have a very, very good reason to believe so.

I sure you're not understanding me. My Merriam - Webster dictionary lists this definition for "belief":
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

In the case for #1, I simply do not have a state of mind, or a habit of mind in which I trust or have confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow...because I do not. Why? Because there is always a chance that the sun will not come up tomorrow. IOW, I simply do not know that the sun will come up tomorrow. All historical experience tells me that the sun came up every day. That tells me that there is a really really good chance that it will do so tomorrow, but I do not "believe" it will. I think it will due to past experience, etc.. This train of thought does not jibe with definition #3 above because although it is true the sun came up everyday in the past, it is not a conviction of truth or a reality that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Number 2 doesn't count in this case.

People "believe" god has a personality. (Then again, we hear the usual apologetics: "God is incomprehensible", and "God is inscrutable, we cannot know his ways". But not so inscrutable or incomprehensible as theists tell us all about this incomprehensible God’s attributes until they have to run from the logical debunking of God by special pleading.) It is said that it is more than possible that one may have a "personal relationship" with god. In definition of belief #1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing, the trust or confidence is misplaced BECAUSE of definition #3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. The evidence is no good. The evidence cannot be qualified, quantified, examined or duplicated by others. But they believe nonetheless...through faith.
I do not have faith or believe the sun will come up tomorrow. I THINK it will come up tomorrow. And if it does, I then know I was right. What Asmodean said: "Belief that the sun will rise requires none." was spot on.

But the sun doesn't rise.

Quote from: "Gawen"]I sure you're not understanding me. My Merriam - Webster dictionary lists this definition for "belief":
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

In the case for #1, I simply do not have a state of mind, or a habit of mind in which I trust or have confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow...because I do not. Why? Because there is always a chance that the sun will not come up tomorrow. IOW, I simply do not know that the sun will come up tomorrow. All historical experience tells me that the sun came up every day. That tells me that there is a really really good chance that it will do so tomorrow, but I do not "believe" it will. I think it will due to past experience, etc.. This train of thought does not jibe with definition #3 above because although it is true the sun came up everyday in the past, it is not a conviction of truth or a reality that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Number 2 doesn't count in this case.

People "believe" god has a personality. (Then again, we hear the usual apologetics: "God is incomprehensible", and "God is inscrutable, we cannot know his ways". But not so inscrutable or incomprehensible as theists tell us all about this incomprehensible God’s attributes until they have to run from the logical debunking of God by special pleading.) It is said that it is more than possible that one may have a "personal relationship" with god. In definition of belief #1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing, the trust or confidence is misplaced BECAUSE of definition #3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. The evidence is no good. The evidence cannot be qualified, quantified, examined or duplicated by others. But they believe nonetheless...through faith.
I do not have faith or believe the sun will come up tomorrow. I THINK it will come up tomorrow. And if it does, I then know I was right. What Asmodean said: "Belief that the sun will rise requires none." was spot on.

I (and other online dictionaries and encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia) define belief as simply thinking a proposition or premise to be true. While it is true you don't have to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, you believe that it has a very, very good probability of doing so.

I think this is really just a semantics argument.

Quote from: "i_am_i"But the sun doesn't rise.

Quote from: "i_am_i"But the sun doesn't rise.

*laffin*...I know...I know...

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I think this is really just a semantics argument.

QuoteIn that, you are probably right.

This has been bugging me. Lets look at a biblical example.
Mark 8:12: And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
Considering what the author is communicating, "Mark" has a primary theme that belief is based on faith and not evidence. The question is, WHY does "Mark's" Jesus refuse to give a sign for the purpose of promoting belief?

Because "Mark" has a primary theme that evidence not only does not create belief, it actually destroys belief. "Mark's" disciples receive more evidence than anyone else and have the least amount of faith. Total strangers who have never seen Jesus before and received no evidence, have the most faith. In "Mark" belief is directly related to faith and inversely related to evidence.

Evidence leads to knowledge. Depending on the evidence, one 'knows' to certain degrees and does not have to believe without the evidence...hence 'faith.

Yes, there is a difference between knowing something and believing something.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I wonder what became of Goathead.

I'm pretty sure he collected some enforced time off for asshattery in another thread.

Quote from: "Recusant";) I merely point out that since i_am_i/J is an active member of the forum, to spend time interpreting the original post, and disputing those interpretations as if we couldn't simply ask the original poster for clarification is rather silly, in my opinion.

Yes I fully agree.

Quote from: "Recusant"Regarding your world view, or lack of one,

Yes lack of one.

Quote from: "Recusant"I think I understand a little better now.  In your original statement it seems I misinterpreted

You did, yes.

Quote from: "Recusant"and I'm glad that you clarified.  You say you don't have a world view, and I'm not going to tell you that you do.

Thank you.

Quote from: "Recusant"But let's look at the definition of the term--

Merriam-Webster equates "worldview" with "weltanschauung," and defines it thus:

QuoteFrom Merriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltanschauung?show=0&t=1290535944):

"a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint"

I imagine that since you say that you perceive the world (how could you not, after all, as a sentient being?) you would agree that you have a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world.

I disagree. I have no comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world.

Quote from: "Recusant"So perhaps you're saying that you don't subscribe to a specific standpoint.

Not at all. My "standpoint" is perception, but that's different from a world-view.

Quote from: "Recusant"Yet you have expressed opinions in this forum.

Allow me to correct you here: I expressed *perceptions* in this forum.

Quote from: "Recusant"How is one able to form opinions without having a specific standpoint upon which to form them?

Because you don't a standpoint to form opinion. Opinion is opinion; fact is fact.

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm truly curious about this topic, and am not particularly trying to give you a hard time.  I honestly want to understand why it is that you say you have no world view.  Thank you for your patience.

You're welcome. I do consider myself a patient and peaceful person.