PDA

View Full Version : Defining God



David G
10-31-2015, 11:06 AM
Whatever your system. Whatever your tradition. Whatever your opinion of Science, God, Good, Evil, and the ineffable mysteries of the Universe...

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10358124_941125119257930_8921769189998481376_n.jpg ?oh=0319cfe78c280fa9ad353ae88e846b1b&oe=56C1CF8E

McMike
10-31-2015, 11:18 AM
Whenever I have prayed to god in the past, he has been silent, my faith was unrewarded.

When I realized that all I needed was faith in myself, I thrived.

The Bible states that god created us, we are of god. If this is true, we are god, all of us and everything. Why do we need to explain it further than that? Why all the wrappings and trappings?

If there is a god I am that god, If not, I am still the only being that can answer my prayers.

David G
10-31-2015, 11:27 AM
Whenever I have prayed to god in the past, he has been silent, my faith was unrewarded.

When I realized that all I needed was faith in myself, I thrived.

The Bible states that god created us, we are of god. If this is true, we are god, all of us and everything. Why do we need to explain it further than that? Why all the wrappings and trappings?

If there is a god I am that god, If not, I am still the only being that can answer my prayers.

You could be right, Mr. Heinlein <G>

McMike
10-31-2015, 11:35 AM
You could be right, Mr. Heinlein <G>

If this is the Mr. Heinlein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein) you're talking about, I'll take that as high praise.

Chris Coose
10-31-2015, 11:47 AM
Life is far simpler when one thoroughly relieves him or herself of the attempt to define God. It is quite freeing to see oneself a step outside of the circle of those making the effort.

David G
10-31-2015, 12:02 PM
If this is the Mr. Heinlein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein) you're talking about, I'll take that as high praise.

If you haven't read "Stranger in a Strange Land"... you really should. The protagonist - Valentine Michael Smith - is a very interesting lens thru which to view the world. One of his common phrases: "Thou Art God".

ron ll
10-31-2015, 12:07 PM
It's a misspelled dog, nothing more.

McMike
10-31-2015, 12:09 PM
If you haven't read "Stranger in a Strange Land"... you really should. The protagonist - Valentine Michael Smith - is a very interesting lens thru which to view the world. One of his common phrases: "Thou Art God".

Just the title alone appeals to me. I've always felt like one and, in fact, I wrote a song by the same title years ago.

I was ignorant of Heinlein up to about an hour ago when you referred to him. Just read the Wiki on him. I'm not much of a book reader as it's labor for me to do it, if I ever get a bug up my butt though, I'll look this dude up, sounds like my kind of guy.

bobbys
10-31-2015, 12:30 PM
people only swear with one name for God.

Might say something about what they really believe in..

Never heard anyone swear with tradition.

LeeG
10-31-2015, 12:35 PM
Kind of a conundrum there, getting pointed to something implies it is displaced from where one is.

TomF
10-31-2015, 12:57 PM
Does a chipmunk or a deer define the ecosystem in which its kind developed? Can it begin to do so with any semblance of completeness?

Does the ecosystem exist, regardless of the chipmunk's or deer's incapacity?

oznabrag
10-31-2015, 01:06 PM
Any attempt to define god is an attempt to make god in one's own image. Therefore, any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

David G
10-31-2015, 01:23 PM
I believe spirit exists. My inability to absolutely define or describe it does not lessen that conviction. I believe we have souls - which are important to get to know. I believe in good and evil - one of which we need to feed, the other of which we need to resist/combat. Beyond that... I'm not sure we can confidently go. It matters not to me whether you call the source of all goodness and clarity 'God'. It matters not to me whether you believe 'god' is within or without or both. It does matter to me that you learn to recognize good/god and nourish it - both within and without. It does matter to me that you resist the bad... or at least not foster/encourage it.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12065933_10153206894657083_5414317728836483297_n.j pg?oh=9c37025fed9b78b3755d831a071ceab9&oe=56AD0B5A

Peerie Maa
10-31-2015, 01:55 PM
Any attempt to define god is an attempt to make god in one's own image. Therefore, any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

I thought that had already happened. If Adam was made in His image, is He not in Adam's image?

CWSmith
10-31-2015, 01:58 PM
The OP is well-stated. I think a great many people of faith that I know find truth in the faith of others, but greater truth in their own tradition. That's only natural, or they would change.


Any attempt to define god is an attempt to make god in one's own image. Therefore, any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

That may be your experience. It is not mine. I don't want to make God in my own image. I don't inspire myself.

oznabrag
10-31-2015, 02:07 PM
I thought that had already happened. If Adam was made in His image, is He not in Adam's image?

No. If I photocopy a document, the copy is made in the image of the original, but not vice versa.


. . .


That may be your experience. It is not mine.

I don't think subjectivity comes into play.

Peerie Maa
10-31-2015, 02:14 PM
No. If I photocopy a document, the copy is made in the image of the original, but not vice versa.


With today's scanning copiers the images are interchangeable. Sounds to me as though you are splitting hairs.
Why did the precursors of Judaism decide that they were made in gods image? Seems like hubris to me. By saying that they were in gods image, they were defining their god else they could not make that claim. Other wise it would be in the image of . . . . what exactly.

oznabrag
10-31-2015, 02:23 PM
With today's scanning copiers the images are interchangeable. Sounds to me as though you are splitting hairs.
Why did the precursors of Judaism decide that they were made in gods image? Seems like hubris to me.

Sounds to me as though you are ignoring that one was made in the image of the other.

The fact that they are virtually indistinguishable is irrelevant. One was made as a copy of the other.

Furthermore, your assertion that it sounds like hubris is completely correct. Hubris means to believe that the original and the copy are interchangeable. That man is god.

I don't believe any of that claptrap, myself, but those who do should recognize that by their own lights any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

But they don't.

boat fan
10-31-2015, 02:24 PM
Life is far simpler when one thoroughly relieves him or herself of the attempt to define God. It is quite freeing to see oneself a step outside of the circle of those making the effort.

Agreed , totally , for many , many reasons .

http://i.imgur.com/04F2udP.jpg

Peerie Maa
10-31-2015, 02:44 PM
Sounds to me as though you are ignoring that one was made in the image of the other.

The fact that they are virtually indistinguishable is irrelevant. One was made as a copy of the other.

Furthermore, your assertion that it sounds like hubris is completely correct. Hubris means to believe that the original and the copy are interchangeable. That man is god.

I don't believe any of that claptrap, myself, but those who do should recognize that by their own lights any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

But they don't.


What large proportion of people practising a religion need something to focus on, whether it be a lingam, a simple cross, a human nailed to a cross, a statue of a woman. There are probably more who do than those like the Society of Friends who do not. So if those who need images to focus on when worshipping might be defining a god in that image, are they blaspheming? If you are praying, you must have something to focus your mind on, yes? Is that something not a form of definition. After all ideas are definitions in themselves.

skuthorp
10-31-2015, 02:47 PM
I don't know about god, but I like John Shelby Spong and have heard him speak a few times. Eminently sensible man.

Keith Wilson
10-31-2015, 02:50 PM
Defining God is entirely beyond my ability.

skuthorp
10-31-2015, 03:55 PM
"Why did the precursors of Judaism decide that they were made in gods image?"
Wrong way round, but it sells better this way.

CWSmith
10-31-2015, 04:02 PM
I don't think subjectivity comes into play.

The search for truth in questions such as yours is entirely subjective.

Dave Wright
10-31-2015, 04:28 PM
people only swear with one name for God.

Might say something about what they really believe in..

Never heard anyone swear with tradition.

I notice that whenever I'm building a boat I say "Goddamit!" much more frequently than at other times.

bobbys
10-31-2015, 04:48 PM
I notice that whenever I'm building a boat I say "Goddamit!" much more frequently than at other times.
.

You religious nuts!

TomF
10-31-2015, 05:01 PM
Atheists avowing that god is made in man's image feels a bit like me discoursing on how it feels to singlehand in a Southern Ocean storm. Me, who's never sailed a bluewater passage, nor been in waves over about 3 feet.

But, one says, the Southern Ocean's real. Folks have been there, sailed there, live there still. Yes, I say. Talk to a monk sometime.

Peerie Maa
10-31-2015, 05:10 PM
Atheists avowing that god is made in man's image feels a bit like me discoursing on how it feels to singlehand in a Southern Ocean storm.

It is a challenging question, no? Anyway the challenge is more about if a huge proportion of devout people of faith need images as a part of the practice of their faith, are they blaspheming?

Upshur
10-31-2015, 05:14 PM
The whole god thing has been beyond my imagination.

TomF
10-31-2015, 05:48 PM
It is a challenging question, no? Anyway the challenge is more about if a huge proportion of devout people of faith need images as a part of the practice of their faith, are they blaspheming?

I think it's a question of what you think the image is. If you think it's an actual depiction of God, or God him/herself, at best it's limiting - maybe blasphemous. Though I've gotta say, I have a hard time with that nebulous word.

Orthodox talk about icons as windows to look through, towards God. I think art of all sorts can be that, paths that, when walked certain ways, can lead you closer. So can other sorts of experience, actually; the Christian monastic goal (very like a buddhist monastic one) is to live life fully consciously. In the Christan monk's case, fully conscious that God's visible in everything, in all of it. Life turns into prayer, as you chop the carrots, clean up after the dog, etc.

In that sense, one asks what being uniquely in the "image of God" means. As everything's rife with him, displaying his fingerprints. Maybe the imago dei is about having the conscious capacity to observe it (or not), in ways which are not possible for robins, earthworms, or oak trees.

Peerie Maa
10-31-2015, 05:59 PM
I think it's a question of what you think the image is. If you think it's an actual depiction of God, or God him/herself, at best it's limiting - maybe blasphemous. Though I've gotta say, I have a hard time with that nebulous word.

Orthodox talk about icons as windows to look through, towards God. I think art of all sorts can be that, paths that, when walked certain ways, can lead you closer. So can other sorts of experience, actually; the Christian monastic goal (very like a buddhist monastic one) is to live life fully consciously. In the Christan monk's case, fully conscious that God's visible in everything, in all of it. Life turns into prayer, as you chop the carrots, clean up after the dog, etc.

In that sense, one asks what being uniquely in the "image of God" means. As everything's rife with him, displaying his fingerprints. Maybe the imago dei is about having the conscious capacity to observe it (or not), in ways which are not possible for robins, earthworms, or oak trees.

I strongly suspect that everyone, even if firmly embedded in this or that church's congregation worships a god unique to them and that no two people's gods are ever the same. The issue of saints and the Virgin Mary as intermediary's is another strange phenomenon.

Chip-skiff
10-31-2015, 06:04 PM
Three quarts of rice.

TomF
10-31-2015, 06:09 PM
Is that because God's different, or the person observing is? We have different fingerprints and dna patterns, to say nothing of our experiences. Making our experience of the world unique, divergent. Is it the world that's different though?

skuthorp
10-31-2015, 06:10 PM
"The issue of saints and the Virgin Mary as intermediary's is another strange phenomenon."
As is the development of the concept of clergy, conversion, blasphemy and schism etc. If there a a god it's one god and a person's 'portal' is personal and irrelevant. Established churches, cults etc are all about politics and power, and often enough sex.

oznabrag
10-31-2015, 07:06 PM
Any attempt to define god is an attempt to make god in one's own image. Therefore, any attempt to define god is blasphemy.


No. If I photocopy a document, the copy is made in the image of the original, but not vice versa.



I don't think subjectivity comes into play.


Sounds to me as though you are ignoring that one was made in the image of the other.

The fact that they are virtually indistinguishable is irrelevant. One was made as a copy of the other.

Furthermore, your assertion that it sounds like hubris is completely correct. Hubris means to believe that the original and the copy are interchangeable. That man is god.

I don't believe any of that claptrap, myself, but those who do should recognize that by their own lights any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

But they don't.


The search for truth in questions such as yours is entirely subjective.

I don't recall having asked any questions here, boss.

John Smith
10-31-2015, 07:37 PM
Any attempt to define god is an attempt to make god in one's own image. Therefore, any attempt to define god is blasphemy.

I think each defines God to suit his own purpose. The whole 'IMAGE' thing contradicts the concept of God being invisible.


God's got qreat gig. Katrina roars through and people thank HIm if their loved ones survive. No one blames if their loved ones die.

CWSmith
10-31-2015, 08:14 PM
The search for truth in questions such as yours is entirely subjective.


I don't recall having asked any questions here, boss.

I'm not your boss and you need to look up the word "subjective". But you are partly correct. You are not asking questions. You are stating your view of fact which is misguided. Your view is subjective and you might do better if you were asking questions instead of asserting things you will (apparently) not consider.

Bobby of Tulsa
10-31-2015, 08:21 PM
I think each defines God to suit his own purpose. The whole 'IMAGE' thing contradicts the concept of God being invisible.


God's got qreat gig. Katrina roars through and people thank HIm if their loved ones survive. No one blames if their loved ones die. Death is where we are all headed, Not Gods fault at all. If you want to blame God, Go for it dude. See DavidG's forgiveness thread.

oznabrag
10-31-2015, 11:57 PM
I'm not your boss and you need to look up the word "subjective". But you are partly correct. You are not asking questions. You are stating your view of fact which is misguided. Your view is subjective and you might do better if you were asking questions instead of asserting things you will (apparently) not consider.

You are incorrect.

Logic is not subjective.

Love ya, 'migo.

CK 17
11-01-2015, 12:00 AM
Life is far simpler when one thoroughly relieves him or herself of the attempt to define God. It is quite freeing to see oneself a step outside of the circle of those making the effort.
Amen to that!

ShagRock
11-01-2015, 12:25 AM
It is a challenging question, no? Anyway the challenge is more about if a huge proportion of devout people of faith need images as a part of the practice of their faith, are they blaspheming?

Proportion has little to do with it since all believers, even atheists, live by the images of their belief.

Glen Longino
11-01-2015, 12:26 AM
There is only one god!
It is a gigantic metate floating in space.
That is what some South American Indians believe, and it is as true and rational as any other religious belief.
Human minds are capable of far more absurd delusions than any other living organisms.
Our minds are both a gift and a curse.
We are the only known critters in the universe to consciously plot the destruction of other critters of their species in pursuit of our contrived and ill-defined "goals".
Our only hope for survival as a species is to relieve ourselves from the burden of gods.
Wake me up when it's over!

Peerie Maa
11-01-2015, 06:26 AM
"The issue of saints and the Virgin Mary as intermediary's is another strange phenomenon."
As is the development of the concept of clergy, conversion, blasphemy and schism etc. If there a a god it's one god and a person's 'portal' is personal and irrelevant. Established churches, cults etc are all about politics and power, and often enough sex.

No, a devout Christian with whom I worked was clear that you had to form a congregation to practice your faith. Established churches facilitate the power hungry by providing room to operate, but churches like the Society of Friends gives a lie to your claim.

Jim Mahan
11-01-2015, 08:31 AM
Humans are all about politics and power, and often enough sex.

This might be true enough for just about any human endeavor, and leave God out of it. Except that I would put it, "and have sex often enough." Often enough to subdue the planet, and just plain often, if you're lucky.

skuthorp
11-01-2015, 10:36 AM
Hmm, how jim, presuming you are a believer, can you 'leave god out of it'? Either it exists and it's in, or it doesn't.

PM (#43) . I have long held that the most important part of a belief in god is the local congregation, and that one could join and participate in such a gathering without any belief in a god at all, that being the least important function, other than as a focus.

oznabrag
11-01-2015, 01:10 PM
No, a devout Christian with whom I worked was clear that you had to form a congregation to practice your faith. Established churches facilitate the power hungry by providing room to operate, but churches like the Society of Friends gives a lie to your claim.

'Re-ligion' means re-binding, after all. Coming together to reaffirm the bonds of the community is a fine idea.

It's when those reaffirmations include destroying other communities that the trouble manifests.

Tribalist religion/religious tribalism is bad juju, IMO.

Stiletto
11-01-2015, 04:40 PM
PM (#43) . I have long held that the most important part of a belief in god is the local congregation, and that one could join and participate in such a gathering without any belief in a god at all, that being the least important function, other than as a focus.

I have always felt that to attend church and accepting the benefits of doing so, without sharing their beliefs is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

skuthorp
11-01-2015, 04:52 PM
By their actions there are not a few clergy that should not be there under those criteria. Re 'intellectual dishonesty', that seems to me to be the common state of the vast majority of humanity. They call it rationalisation and compromise. But I have no desire to partake in a congregation myself I might add.

bob winter
11-01-2015, 05:02 PM
Organized religion is a curse.

skuthorp
11-01-2015, 05:42 PM
Organised religion is a power base, is predictable, is stable. Pharos, Kings, Emperors, presidents and prime ministers, governance in general love it, pander to it, promote it and often enough finance it. Higher ranks of the clergy accrue privilege from government as a payback, and the church supports their wars.

TomF
11-01-2015, 06:21 PM
With deep respect, that brush is very broad indeed, and at least as much of organized religion diverges as demonstrates what you've described.

AndyG
11-01-2015, 06:51 PM
During the English Middle Ages, the state religion (Catholicism) provided a strong counter to royal/baronial autocratic power. "Mess with us, and we'll excommunicate you and stir up popular dissent."

Church law was seperate and parallel to state law. A system of checks and balances evolved that was able to steer feudalism towards something a bit more balanced than a mere protection racket.

Do we need it today? It's spectacularly interesting to me that the current state religion (Anglicanism) does little but weigh in with a soft moral compass to curb the potential excesses of any governments' decision making.

Same old same old.

Andy

David G
11-01-2015, 06:55 PM
And... the atheists chime in --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1653432_10154764464210080_6057808862738845041_n.jp g?oh=b584a7ce3d4075e4485a865088001805&oe=56C31668

skuthorp
11-01-2015, 08:41 PM
America Atheists eh? I've had contact there and a militant lot they can be too. If they are organised, have rules, a constitution, office holders, a PR Director?? etc. what's the difference?
It's the reason I don't call myself an atheist, is assigns you a 'belief in non belief' if you will. SamF and I had a few conversations on the subject.

peb
11-01-2015, 09:35 PM
Defining God is entirely beyond my ability.



Perhaps you haven't really tried.

Keith Wilson
11-01-2015, 09:49 PM
Perhaps you haven't really tried.No, I've thought about it a fair amount off and on. Given the evidence of the observable world, I have yet to come up with anything that isn't completely contradictory that's comprehensible to this mere mortal. I have no plausible answer to Epicurus's statement of the problem of evil, nor can I find much rational evidence for any kind of god that actually cares about individual people. But then, I'm just a reasonably bright large-brained ape, and my ignorance of many things is positively monumental.

WX
11-01-2015, 10:50 PM
It's a misspelled dog, nothing more.

Yes he was a dyslexic.

BrianY
11-02-2015, 09:27 AM
For me, the best ("best" being the one that causes the least conflict with reason and logic) definition of God is Spinoza's - God is "All that is". The second any definition of God put him/her/it outside of or separate from Nature - that is, any conception of God as "supernatural" - all sorts of problems start to arise.

The problem is, IMO, that most people are not comfortable with a conception of God as something without a personality, without thoughts or feelings or emotions because there's nothing that they can relate to. Therefore they assign all of these human characteristics to God so that they can define him/her/it in a way that is familiar and comfortable. We're used to human authority figures telling us how to behave, what to think, being capricious, sometimes malevolent, sometimes incredibly good and people ascribe all of these same human traits to their gods. We define God by how we define ourselves.

LeeG
11-02-2015, 10:02 AM
Defining God is entirely beyond my ability.

I'm pretty much maxed out drawing stick figures

LeeG
11-02-2015, 10:10 AM
Perhaps you haven't really tried.

To what purpose?

John Smith
11-02-2015, 10:18 AM
For me, the best ("best" being the one that causes the least conflict with reason and logic) definition of God is Spinoza's - God is "All that is". The second any definition of God put him/her/it outside of or separate from Nature - that is, any conception of God as "supernatural" - all sorts of problems start to arise.

The problem is, IMO, that most people are not comfortable with a conception of God as something without a personality, without thoughts or feelings or emotions because there's nothing that they can relate to. Therefore they assign all of these human characteristics to God so that they can define him/her/it in a way that is familiar and comfortable. We're used to human authority figures telling us how to behave, what to think, being capricious, sometimes malevolent, sometimes incredibly good and people ascribe all of these same human traits to their gods. We define God by how we define ourselves.

In my humble experience arguments over God generally come down to the concept that something had to start all this, because everything has to have a beginning, but then we are told God was always there, which contradicts the very argument they make.

As I read history, the Greeks had lots of Gods. I also recall reading that two other religions, before Christianity, had a savior killed and rise from the dead.

I, personally, have always been content to admit I don't know how we came to be here. We may or may not one day learn the truth, and it seems we are getting closer to learning, and there is no Supreme being in what we're finding.

Keith Wilson
11-02-2015, 10:18 AM
I'm pretty much maxed out drawing stick figures. Yep.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Picture-23.png

John Smith
11-02-2015, 10:19 AM
Another observation I've made is when one person asks another, "Do you believe in God?", and the other responds affirmatively, they both now think their beliefs are identical.

Keith Wilson
11-02-2015, 10:21 AM
https://i2.wp.com/imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

Keith Wilson
11-02-2015, 10:22 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PiaPnTnCh9Y/VRn_942xbMI/AAAAAAAAA3M/R7oLbffWew8/s1600/xkcd.png

BrianY
11-02-2015, 10:34 AM
Another observation I've made is when one person asks another, "Do you believe in God?", and the other responds affirmatively, they both now think their beliefs are identical.

religion and politics...two things that everyone assumes everyone around them agrees with...or would if they know what's good for 'em!

Harvey Golden
11-02-2015, 11:45 AM
Defining God is entirely beyond my ability.

Well you are in luck! There are plenty of people out there more than happy to do this for you! |;)

Keith Wilson
11-02-2015, 11:54 AM
Well you are in luck! There are plenty of people out there more than happy to do this for you! |;)True enough. I strongly suspect, however, that they're no better at it than I am.

Osborne Russell
11-02-2015, 02:31 PM
https://i2.wp.com/imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

Too true !!

Waddie
11-02-2015, 02:34 PM
What an arrogant idea it is that God could be defined by man, whether he exists in actuality or as metaphor. Even as a concept the idea of God is undefinable. Humans just don't have the language or intellectual mojo to do that. Any time you use language to define God you set limits and context, which of course could not apply to God. So God truly is unknowable.

Most days I'm an atheist, except for those rare moments of great fear or great pleasure...... but my wife has a strong belief, attends church every Sunday, and derives strength from her beliefs. I'm happy for her. Years ago I really wanted to believe, but it just didn't happen for me. And I'm OK with that. But I'm sure not going to denigrate her or her beliefs, as none of us really knows if God exists or not. As far as organized religion goes, I think the good that's been done in the name of God far outweighs the bad.

regards,
Waddie

BrianY
11-02-2015, 02:39 PM
What an arrogant idea it is that God could be defined by man, whether he exists in actuality or as metaphor. Even as a concept the idea of God is undefinable. Humans just don't have the language or intellectual mojo to do that. Any time you use language to define God you set limits and context, which of course could not apply to God. So God truly is unknowable.



You're correct if god or gods actually do exist and totally wrong if they don't actually exist. If they do exist, then yes it is arrogant for anyone to assume that any human can define what they are/aren't. If however, they don't actually exist and we've made them all up, then it is 100% appropriate that we humans define what our creation - the thing we made up - is.

Osborne Russell
11-02-2015, 02:40 PM
To not believe is frightening to some people. In my experience there is no point talking with them about it, let alone arguing. Just drives them further back into the cave.

TomF
11-02-2015, 02:41 PM
To not believe is frightening to some people. In my experience there is no point talking with them about it, let alone arguing. Just drives them further back into the cave.Works the other way too, FWIW.

Osborne Russell
11-02-2015, 02:48 PM
Some person is frightened to believe?

skuthorp
11-02-2015, 02:52 PM
I'm not frightened, I just don't care either way. I have no control, I just am until I'm not. What's to be frightened of? Just enjoy the journey.

TomF
11-02-2015, 03:00 PM
Some person is frightened to believe?I observe that some show very similar behaviour - backing further and further into the cave, unable or unwilling to entertain the thought that they might be mistaken. Often while being rather verbally violent.

I agree with you that among some believers, this behaviour describes fear to entertain the thought that they're wrong - that the edifice they've made is meaningless. I think the same applies the other direction.

Osborne Russell
11-02-2015, 07:14 PM
I observe that some show very similar behaviour - backing further and further into the cave, unable or unwilling to entertain the thought that they might be mistaken. Often while being rather verbally violent.

A mule is just plain stubborn !


I agree with you that among some believers, this behaviour describes fear to entertain the thought that they're wrong - that the edifice they've made is meaningless. I think the same applies the other direction.

Probably a quibble, but I think it's more fundamental than that. The ones I have in mind cannot function, or only imperfectly, without faith. Doubt arises from many sources, and their lives are a struggle. A subset are the ones who die gladly or not, quiet or loud, for their faith, because when it comes to it, they know themselves well enough to know that death would be better.

The atheist loud mouth is not an exact counter-part. His atheism is part of his general bravado. They fold the minute things get serious, and often "find faith", how about that.

Only wack jobs can even pretend to die for atheism.

skuthorp
11-02-2015, 08:49 PM
TomF, I do not regard the organised lot, the 'loudmouthed atheists' as atheists at all. I agree with SamF on this, they have a 'non-belief structure' if you will. (See#53). Belief and the lack of it is much the same if you take the organisation away. Quiet and personal, the rest is human hubris and a construct. Personally, if when faced with my imminent demise I will fold is something I cannot tell.

:DIf I'm wrong and god is as religions have been telling us for thousands of years then I have some very serious questions regarding it's liability and reliability.r