Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Defining The Unbeliever


David Henson

Recommended Posts

I'm retired but I have this website on spirituality that takes up most of my time. What I need, though, is feedback. I'm looking for a nice forum like this to debate and discuss spirituality, primarily from a skeptic perspective. To many people skepticism implies disbelief, and I understand that, but it doesn't necessarily negate belief. I'm skeptical but I'm a believer. I lived the first 27 years of my life as an unbeliever. When I finally decided to pick up a Bible and investigate the God of the Bible for the first time, I did so without belief, but with an open mind I became a believer.

I try to avoid the many labels defining the specifics of both sides of the fence. Labels can be helpful but they can also be distracting and overly restrictive. I find it easier to categorize people in the context of spiritual debate and discussion into either of two camps. Believer and unbeliever.

The believer, obviously believes there is a God or gods, and the unbeliever doesn't believe there is a God or gods. Herein lies somewhat of a pedantic conundrum for me specifically, however, in that my definition of a god is in line with a wider definition of the simple concept of god(s) than the average person, it doesn't necessarily involve the supernatural. To a certain extent I can easily capitulate, accepting the more specific application of the supernatural god of the average believer for the sake of debate, but at the same time it often creates a problem with a fundamental understanding of the concept.

An example in everyday life would be when a believer would object to the use of the term god damn. This is often thought to be "taking the Lord's name in vain." It isn't. God isn't a name, like Michael, its a title like man, or lord.

Another example would be the atheist mantra "there is no god(s)." This creates a problem due to the atheistic limitation placed on the definition. To an atheist a god must be supernatural, must exist or have had to exist at one time, or is a metaphoric application. This is problematic to me because, as a henotheist, like I believe the writers of the Bible were, a god can but needn't necessarily be any of those things nor the latter application. For example, Zeus was a mythological figure. Zeus didn't exist. I don't believe in Zeus. Zeus is a god.

According to the Bible Jesus, who was a man, was a god. So was Moses, the Judges of Israel, both faithful and unfaithful, and the Sumerian king Tammuz were all gods. And mortal men. The simple variations of the Hebrew el and the Greek theos all imply nothing more than anyone or anything that is mighty or venerated is a god. Those are the only requirements for being a god. Jehovah, for example, didn't become a god to the ancient people of Israel until they acknowledged him as mighty and worshiped him.

To begin my discussion I would like to know what is, to you, a god, and why you think there is or isn't any.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods (just look up the etymology).

I suggest you Google "The Atheist Experience", "The Thinking Atheist", and Youtube search "AronRa Atheist".

Also check out the links in my Signature.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the most direct path to atheism for me, was to read the bible.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a believer in any religious god. For me, the origin of the concept of god and religion was primitive humankind's attempt to explain the natural world. In this age of science, I would hope we have outgrown these primitive explanations. To believe in these ancient stories, in my view, is an intellectual regression to the primitive mind.

Now, I think there is the possibility of some creator that created the universe/megaverse/multiverse, what have you, but the concept of this creator has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. In other words, it would not be something to worship. It would be something beyond the capability of our intellect to understand or conceptualize. Something like some great machinery or natural phenomenon from which the universe manifests. This is as close to a god that I'm willing to accept.

I don't know if this is an appropriate answer to the subject of your OP that you're looking for. But there it is. :)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, I wouldn't live differently

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the most direct path to atheism for me, was to read the bible.

Reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to accept the possibility that our Universe may be the product of a Creative Intelligence.

Why would someone think that dismissing religious texts of a particular religion somehow disprove the 'God' theory is not easy for me to understand, unless one is unaware that there can be definitions of 'God' that are fully consistant with modern science and human experience.

In this case, I would refer to this very interesting book by astrophycisist Dr Bernard Haisch:

The God Theory: Universes, Zero Points Fields, And What's Behind It All:

Link: http://www.amazon.co...=the god theory

I'm an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, I wouldn't live differently

I suppose a deist , a pantheist or the agnostic would say the exact same thing, as for them morality as nothing to do with religion-based faith.

Edited by samus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Henson

Just out of curiosity (I am interested in comparative religion), in what religion is Moses a god?

According to the Bible Jesus, who was a man, was a god. So was Moses, the Judges of Israel, both faithful and unfaithful, and the Sumerian king Tammuz were all gods.

and I'll answer yours,

To begin my discussion I would like to know what is, to you, a god, and why you think there is or isn't any.

A god is a hypothetical or actual being who exists outside of time and space (eternal in that sense of the word), who can act within time and space, and who acknowledges no superior kind of being. Usually, a god is a person in some sense, but not necessarily.

I profess no opinion about whether or not there are, were or will be any gods. Of the many ways that that could come to be my stance, I am a Huxleyan agnostic, that is, I estimate that the available evidence is insufficient for me to form any opinion which I would care to profess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A god is a hypothetical or actual being who exists outside of time and space (eternal in that sense of the word), who can act within time and space, and who acknowledges no superior kind of being. Usually, a god is a person in some sense, but not necessarily.

Again, that depend on your definition of 'God'. What you are describing here is classical monotheism.

If you take a philosophical viewpoint such as Pandeism, the theology is that a Creative Intelligence actually became the Universe. So 'God' does not necesserely exists 'outside space and time', he has merged with It's creation. The Universe is a Deity who realized Itself by changing into a physical form as part of an on-going and self-evolving process, as it is for the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly if I can use this analogy. 'God' is made aware of Itself through us.

In a sense, it's similar to Pantheism, to which nature is Divinity, that 'God' is the sum of everything that exist.

Edited by samus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

samus

Again, that depend on your definition of 'God'.

That's good, since I was asked for my definition of god.

Asking for a definition of god is a trick quesrtion in some ways, since so many gods are ineffable (unable to be both completely and accurately described using words). I am delighted to discuss proposals to define god more usefully than I have done, but uninterested in discussiing the obvious, that any definition is inadequate because gods, both as a category and as individual instances, can transcend every definition.

What you are describing here is classical monotheism.

No, Hermes acknowledged no superior kind of being. He accepted the leadership and was a powerful and faithful aide to Zeus, but Zeus is the same kind of being as Hermes. For his part, Zeus could not have his way with the Fates, but he also had a scope of action they did not. Neither category, old gods or new gods, would be uniformly superior to the other.

If you take a philosophical viewpoint such as Pandeism, the theology is that a Creative Intelligence actually became the Universe. So this metaphysical progenitor, 'God' does not necesserely exists 'outside space and time', he has merged with It's creation.

There is no tense outside of time and space. Fortunately, English allows its grammatical present tense to function without temporal commitment (so "historical present"). Please note that in my definition of god, I used a single tense (the labile present) throughout.

Although I profess no objection to the "'God'" you described, please note that I was asked for my definition of god. It is entirely possible that somebody might porpose, believe in, worship or sacrifice to a being whom they do and I wouldn't call a "god" (an Angel for example).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm retired but I have this website on spirituality that takes up most of my time. What I need, though, is feedback. I'm looking for a nice forum like this to debate and discuss spirituality, primarily from a skeptic perspective.

Alloooooooooooooooooooooo :st
To many people skepticism implies disbelief, and I understand that, but it doesn't necessarily negate belief. I'm skeptical but I'm a believer. I lived the first 27 years of my life as an unbeliever. When I finally decided to pick up a Bible and investigate the God of the Bible for the first time, I did so without belief, but with an open mind I became a believer.

I try to avoid the many labels defining the specifics of both sides of the fence. Labels can be helpful but they can also be distracting and overly restrictive. I find it easier to categorize people in the context of spiritual debate and discussion into either of two camps. Believer and unbeliever.

Well, I think that this is a healthy way of looking at it. I can reflect on your words here. :)

And I have some form of believing of a higher power, so I may be in some grouping here that you are talking about.

The believer, obviously believes there is a God or gods, and the unbeliever doesn't believe there is a God or gods. Herein lies somewhat of a pedantic conundrum for me specifically, however, in that my definition of a god is in line with a wider definition of the simple concept of god(s) than the average person, it doesn't necessarily involve the supernatural. To a certain extent I can easily capitulate, accepting the more specific application of the supernatural god of the average believer for the sake of debate, but at the same time it often creates a problem with a fundamental understanding of the concept.

Well, that confuses me. I could also be getting you wrong on this. But a higher power, god or gods and what they do. It's not normally seen as an everyday mundane thing, so I can't help but think that god or gods or higher powers in my thinking as seen as not something paranormal or supernatural, right?
An example in everyday life would be when a believer would object to the use of the term god damn. This is often thought to be "taking the Lord's name in vain." It isn't. God isn't a name, like Michael, its a title like man, or lord.
Sargent Major damn!!!

Weeeelllll, that doesn't have a easy ring to it! ;):devil: but I see your point here. :D

example would be the atheist mantra "there is no god(s)." This creates a problem due to the atheistic limitation placed on the definition. To an atheist a god must be supernatural, must exist or have had to exist at one time, or is a metaphoric application. This is problematic to me because, as a henotheist, like I believe the writers of the Bible were, a god can but needn't necessarily be any of those things nor the latter application. For example, Zeus was a mythological figure. Zeus didn't exist. I don't believe in Zeus. Zeus is a god.

According to the Bible Jesus, who was a man, was a god. So was Moses, the Judges of Israel, both faithful and unfaithful, and the Sumerian king Tammuz were all gods. And mortal men. The simple variations of the Hebrew el and the Greek theos all imply nothing more than anyone or anything that is mighty or venerated is a god. Those are the only requirements for being a god. Jehovah, for example, didn't become a god to the ancient people of Israel until they acknowledged him as mighty and worshiped him.

To begin my discussion I would like to know what is, to you, a god, and why you think there is or isn't any.

Well, I'm not part of your equation here, because I am believer. But I'm not orthodoxed, I'm a weird variation of New Age and like I said, I have ideas of higher powers. *shrugs*
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There probably is a god. The small chance that there is not one would have to do with the limits of nature. The only way that there is not a god is if nature prevents ultimate evolution. By ultimate i mean some form of mastery over nature itself. If there is a way to say master and control quantum mechanics or even signifigant control over gravity then there is and has been God/s. There simply are to many galaxies and options for evolution to do

It's thing.

As to a transcendent God outside of nature... Well I can go with outside of nature as we know it, but ultimately our minds are not capable of conceiving that nature by sheer nature of our own nature :devil: So it becomes a non issue. That kind of God must only be inferred by its affects and faith.

A Gia God. Or the collective conciousness of the universe is a more probable scenerio and most likely completely within the bounds of nature. This doesn't mean that it can't have most if not all of the traits a transcendent God does. I don't think we could tell the difference anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods (just look up the etymology).

I suggest you Google "The Atheist Experience", "The Thinking Atheist", and Youtube search "AronRa Atheist".

Also check out the links in my Signature.

I didn't mean to imply that I am new to the concept of atheism. I was an atheist for 27 years, and if I could reasonably expect to live 27 more years I would possibly have the time to check out all of those videos you suggest. I'm more interested in what you think yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the most direct path to atheism for me, was to read the bible.

In that case what led me to theism led you to atheism. Most people, including Christians themselves, think it their moral obligation to convert the unbeliever into a believer but that isn't it at all. The purpose of a true believer ought to be to introduce either possibility just so long as they insure those they approach with it have the opportunity to make an informed decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that many people want or need a god to exist. From the believers in religion, to those who speculate positively on some sort of non-religious god or transcendental being, or some natural evolution of a god-like being...

As I said before somewhere above, I think there is a possibility of the existence of some mechanism (non-spiritual, perhaps with intelligence) from which the universe manifested, but I also think all this could just happen by itself. I tend toward things just happening, though.

I know many consider their existence lonely and without meaning without the presence of a god, but I think we have to accept this possibility. I don't consider this possibility a personal tragedy for us. In fact, I think this kind of existence is more heroic, as we must depend on ourselves instead of depending on some spirit that is looking after us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gauge a religion's worth in a person's life by how it affects them and how they in turn affect the world around them.

Does it bring them, compassion, peace and a sense of joy?

If it works for you, that's awesome and I'm happy you found your path to a richer life.

For me, I bought and believed everything the adults around me, told me regarding the bible and Christianity until I was 14-15 and got to the point where my insights and questions about the contradictions and concepts presented to me remained unanswered, poorly answered, or shot down by those unwilling or unable to answer them.

So I went to the source myself and after serious study, rejected it as a way of viewing the world I was experiencing.

edit to add this: the following quote by Dennis Lewis a respected Qi Gong teacher and Eastern Philosopher seems relevant and timely as I read it just as I left this page. It gets to the heart of an insight I had years ago that has served me well in my process of moving through this life with all the myriad sensations and inputs which was... Don't believe everything you think. The same applies to feeling, which tends to magnify thought and create a cycle where a thought engenders an emotion, which reinforces a similar thought, that then magnifies the emotion. The inertia of this can carry folks into all sorts of extremes, just open a news link.

Dennis Lewis:

"Just because you feel something deeply doesn't make it true!

Because a belief is heart-felt doesn't make it true. People with opposing heart-felt beliefs often end up judging, hurting, even killing, one another. It's time to stop equating your beliefs, however deeply you feel them, with truth. Doing so creates misunderstanding, separation, and suffering. You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. We all are. But you're not entitled to call them true just because you feel them deeply. Truth demands far more than strong feelings."

I don't believe everything I think. Just because I thought it and felt it deeply, doesn't make it real, true, or even important.

Edited by quiXilver
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a believer in any religious god.

Me with my odd linguistic anomalies, sees everyone religious in a sense. With or without deity. The very basic tenet of which is a system of beliefs which are strictly adhered to. Though, in the most common use of the word, I also consider myself irreligious. The reason being that no religion has ever remained true, even to itself. Not the Israelite with Jehovah among them as their leader, not Christianity as foretold by Paul (1 Timothy 4:1 / 2 Timothy 4:3-4), or Buddhism, Taoism. They all transmogrify to adopt outside teachings or appease the masses, and are used to abuse their power.

I do, however, believe in the God of the Bible. It's men I don't believe in.

For me, the origin of the concept of god and religion was primitive humankind's attempt to explain the natural world. In this age of science, I would hope we have outgrown these primitive explanations. To believe in these ancient stories, in my view, is an intellectual regression to the primitive mind.

I used to think that as well, but the more I researched quite the opposite seems true. Modern man is, to put it mildly, somewhat presumptuous when it comes to their estimation of religion and primitive man.

Now, I think there is the possibility of some creator that created the universe/megaverse/multiverse, what have you, but the concept of this creator has nothing to do with religion or spirituality. In other words, it would not be something to worship. It would be something beyond the capability of our intellect to understand or conceptualize. Something like some great machinery or natural phenomenon from which the universe manifests. This is as close to a god that I'm willing to accept.

Some great machinery - I like that. Deus Ex Machina. Since I have studied and believe in the Bible I see things somewhat differently. Having been created in his image and given his message, a history like no other, I think it quite possible to understand.

I don't know if this is an appropriate answer to the subject of your OP that you're looking for. But there it is. :)

It was what I was looking for and very interesting. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, I wouldn't live differently

I've not heard that term, apatheist before. I often wonder if we are not all apatheists. Jesus once gave a demonstration to his apostles where he, in the presence of children and the Jewish religious leaders of his time, asked which of the two groups could answer the question of who was doing the will of the Father, those who refused it but did it anyway and those who accepted it but failed to do it. The children understood but the religious leaders didn't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to accept the possibility that our Universe may be the product of a Creative Intelligence.

The Bible says something to that effect, and when I marvel at Jehovah's Creation I can see the truth in it, but at the same time, when given the parable of the Watchmaker, where a primitive man discovers a well made watch and assuming that he would conclude the watch must have had a designer, the skeptic in me says, maybe he would think it was an unusual rock or jewel, or maybe he would think it was a bone fragment that would look good tied into his beard or maybe he would even think that it was a pretty good watch, though not as well made as those on his home planet of Kablazz 3.

Why would someone think that dismissing religious texts of a particular religion somehow disprove the 'God' theory is not easy for me to understand, unless one is unaware that there can be definitions of 'God' that are fully consistant with modern science and human experience.

In this case, I would refer to this very interesting book by astrophycisist Dr Bernard Haisch:

The God Theory: Universes, Zero Points Fields, And What's Behind It All:

Link: http://www.amazon.co...=the god theory

I suppose a deist , a pantheist or the agnostic would say the exact same thing, as for them morality as nothing to do with religion-based faith.

Interesting. I have often wondered why morality was so closely associated with religion, often unnecessarily.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Henson

Just out of curiosity (I am interested in comparative religion), in what religion is Moses a god?

Exodus 7:1 "Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God (Lit., “made you God.”) to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. You are to repeat everything that I will command you, and Aaron your brother will speak to Pharaoh, and he will send the Israelites away from his land."

Exodus 4:16 "He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God (Or “will be representing God to him.”) to him."

Since the Hebrew el (god) and it's variations simply mean to be attributed might or venerated Moses was being appointed by Jehovah to be a mighty authority as representative of God to Aaron and Pharaoh. This is what is meant by the word God.

and I'll answer yours,

A god is a hypothetical or actual being who exists outside of time and space (eternal in that sense of the word), who can act within time and space, and who acknowledges no superior kind of being. Usually, a god is a person in some sense, but not necessarily.

I profess no opinion about whether or not there are, were or will be any gods. Of the many ways that that could come to be my stance, I am a Huxleyan agnostic, that is, I estimate that the available evidence is insufficient for me to form any opinion which I would care to profess.

There sure is an interesting mix of thinkers here. Thanks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find religion to be the source of morality at all, quite the opposite much of the time, when religious folks so often feel justified in perpetrating all sorts of atrocities due to the difference in others beliefs. Religion, rather is an attempt by humans to explain morality, not its source.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case what led me to theism led you to atheism. Most people, including Christians themselves, think it their moral obligation to convert the unbeliever into a believer but that isn't it at all. The purpose of a true believer ought to be to introduce either possibility just so long as they insure those they approach with it have the opportunity to make an informed decision.

Welcome to UM, I have been an atheist since I was 7, ( I was in a Catholic upbringing at the time). Catholic school, the whole immersion common to religious families. It didn't fit for me. When I got older I would explore the literal, scholary, and literary approach to Chrisitanity and Judiasm. Believe me this was a lot of work. I did so with an with an open mind and found that there is not enough evidence at this point to conclude for god(s), so while I remain an atheist, exploring the perspectives I mentioned led me to a place that I think it is important what a person does with the path they are on, not that they are religious or not. As atheist feels like home for me, I assume those that walk the godly path feel like that is home for them to. I have also had experiences that typically are justifications for a belief in God, and a lifestyle change, mine did not do that, I am still an atheist. I concluded based on the tools of science and found this made better sense. For Me, I don't think the bible is evidence for God, but evidence that in the course of being human we ask similar questions, wonder similar things, conclude in similar ways, and all walk different paths.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that confuses me. I could also be getting you wrong on this. But a higher power, god or gods and what they do. It's not normally seen as an everyday mundane thing, so I can't help but think that god or gods or higher powers in my thinking as seen as not something paranormal or supernatural, right?

Well . . . about the time of Jesus a group of religious authorities in the Hebrew religious arena known as the Sopherim, or the Scribes, like Ezra was, decided that the name of their God should be withheld from the common people so that it might not be used in a vulgar fashion. Then, in the typical fashion of religion, they graduated from that position into having a superstitious fear of even saying the name themselves, out loud. They took out the name in most of its occurrences in the Bible and replaced it with the generic term Lord. So whenever you see the word LORD in all upper case letters in the Bible, why, that's where they took the name of God out.

Jeremiah 23:26-27 "They are prophets of the deceit of their own heart. They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baal."

The result was, of course, that the name of God was all but forgotten and so people in Western countries tend to think of God as an individual name or individual rather than a simple title that means "mighty or venerated." So they tend to think of God as a supernatural guy in the sky. If you look up the word God in a dictionary it gives other uses of the word that mean, in one way or another, an attribute of might or authority. Such as a balcony where the rich people sit, or the people in that balcony, or Eric Clapton or any number of Guitar Gods, or a political leader. Generally, in ancient times, a god was something or someone mighty or worshiped whereas a Lord was someone who was given authority. So, though in common use you are right, but in fact the word can be mundane.

Well, I'm not part of your equation here, because I am believer. But I'm not orthodoxed, I'm a weird variation of New Age and like I said, I have ideas of higher powers. *shrugs*

Well, cool. Thanks for the comments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin my discussion I would like to know what is, to you, a god, and why you think there is or isn't any.

A being with human attributes used to explain or give meaning to the universe, often centred around humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, with respect, I don't think quoting religious texts has any meaning for atheists or agnostics or just unbelievers. "Set aside labels and look beneath the surface."

I think this is a problem with religious belief. Their holy books rely on themselves for their authority. I would say therefore they contain no authority. I could write a holy book, and it would have just as much authority as any established holy book. Meaning none.

"Set aside labels and look beneath the surface." What lies beneath the surface of the Bible? In other words, explain to me the authenticity of the Bible without referencing to or quoting from the Bible itself.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Pantheist, god is not separate from spacetime and the Universe is a living entity. Creation is really a kind of birth. Whether sentient or not I don't know, all I know is I am sentient and I am a part of the universe (god), maybe I am the sentient part. I express my spiritual side through Druidry and like StarMountainKid, Bible quotes don't have much meaning for me. Though, I have read it 3 times. There are no sacred/holy books as far as I am concerned. The only thing sacred was the tree from which the book has been made. One day I realized where my moral base, other than my folks (father was an atheist, mom was agnostic) wasn't the Bible, it was Star Trek. Welcome to UM, live long and prosper.

Edited by GreenmansGod
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.