I think that there is a misconception in the world of Christians (especially) who are flummoxed at the idea of atheists. As we have seen on here there are threads stating that we can't prove there isn't a God. There are threads saying that we must know everything in order to firmly say there is no God. And it occurred to me that believers tend to confuse the perspective of an atheist with that of an agnostic.

When I say that I am an atheist I am talking about the perspective of humanity. Not the perspective of the Universe and all the great mysteries out there.

For all we know there could be a planet of giant slugs ruled by the mighty AGPAR! Who is great and mighty etc etc etc.

How do you know this isn't true? Bertrand Russel discusses this in his teapot scenario. More here in Wiki


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


Now for an atheist like myself we must decide upon a perspective. Where are we having this debate? Are we debating the existence of any God out there? Any God theory? Could Agpar be real?

For me I need to choose what we are defining as God. A Christian defines God a very simple way. There is no confusing the mighty Agpar with Yahweh or Jesus. Its a whole different ball game. A believer says "THIS is God" and while I might be an agnostic when it comes to believing in the concept of God, when it comes to YOUR God I am an atheist. Just as you are an atheist about Zeus.



All I knew when I first doubted God, was that THIS Judeo Christian Muslim God did not exist. It was a human INVENTION.

And this we can prove.


We can prove that the texts are written by men, that they are flawed in many ways (ex condoning of slavery etc)


So my evidence and my perspective starts from MAN and goes up to God.

Whereas many believers approach this argument from God down. Aha! You can't PROVE that God doesn't exist!

They seem confused that because they accept God, that this in a sense manifests God and therefor this God must be stripped away in order for him to "Not exist"

But for the atheist that stripping away has usually come at great great lengths that in order for me to explain to YOU, would require me to disrespect your beliefs and whatnot and I don't want to do that. The few times I have come close to doing that I have felt bad about it.

I respect your choice to believe in the Celestial teapot. I understand the commonality of the need to believe in the Celestial teapot. But he has never been proven to exist. Your believing in Agpar, or God, or the teapot, doesn't make it so. It just means that YOU believe it is so.


From my perspective of MAN UP.....I am still waiting for the proof to come. And what I believe is that it will never come because this God doesn't exist.

That is what I believe.

Good job!!

That is a very interesting perspective TrueThat, it is the first time I've heard that type of thinking regarding Atheism, and you know, it makes a great deal of sense. I'm still going to pay my Club Heaven dues, but it brought to mind a type of thinking that I do all the time... Top down thinking. I'm a cog in corporate America who works daily at spreading the top down news at work. It's has nothing to do with religion of course, but has everything to do with my conditioning as a Top Down thinker. And I am one, I always have been.

Veddy veddy inter-esting.

So you don't rule out the existence of any divine being at all? Just the ones you have knowledge of based on personal experience and reason? Am I understanding this? If not please point me in the right direction.



Mine also... and I find this causes great confusion.

Basically I rule out the existence of any divine being based on our "mans" definition of said being.

If there is some cosmic being like Agpar out there, it is beyond our current definition and thus beyond what we mean as "GOD." That to me is a whole different ball game, and so far I see no evidence of this kind of concept so I don't believe in it.

For me the concept of man's defined "God" is like a chicken and the egg. Something would have had to create "God."

What I find interesting is that it is easier for a believer to believe that a great entity that is all powerful and knowing could have come into existence on its own but a single cell couldn't have.

Thanks for the reply MissMel its a fine point that I'm glad came through because its often hard to explain.

This is interesting to me.....So do you believe there might be a God but you don't believe in the way God is portrayed in the many books of religion ??

I have no doubt that these books were the work/invention of men but what if they are talking about the concept of God ?? What I mean is you and them believe in the concept of a God, it's just their interpretation/perspective of Him differs to your interpretation/perspective ??

And just to clarify, my understanding of an agnostic is someone who may or may not believe in God, depending on any evidence......Would that be right, I don't know ??

Sorry if I've confused you but I would really appreciated your input........

Hmmm

I don't believe in the concept of God and I'm not open to believing in any human concept of God. However I very much admire and respect people who make a dedicated effort to connect with this "thing" that seems to effect people to the degree that they call it a god.

That's why I say I believe in FAITH even though I don't believe in God. I can see what people are usually after in their faith and to me its quite compelling.

I also believe in prayer. I believe that prayer is sharing out with others this connection and the power that may (whether real or imagined) impact the world of those dedicated to it.

I hope this answers your question.

true,

I'm trying my best to understand but I'm a bit foggy in the head at the moment.....It must be the pregnancy hormones......

Can you elaborate on the first statement as it doesn't quite click with your second one......

Yeah I caught that after I posted it! LOL


What I mean is that God as we have and can define God is not a concept I believe in.


Now if someone came along with a "God concept" that was outside of the paradigm of the typical God concepts, I MIGHT be open to that.

In other words if this "God" thing really did exist and he came along and said "You have all gotten it wrong, THIS is what God means" then I MIGHT be open to that idea. And in that idea I would be considered agnostic.


But the God concepts that have been set out, and any that would be contrived by man would still be man made concepts to me. And so I don't believe in THIS kind of God concept.

Does that make better sense?

Just as atheism is a man-made concept. If you read carefully the greatest God concepts say that god is beyond all concept and cant be known intellectually. Anyone trying to go beyond concept with words and thoughts are as clever as children trying to climbing to the sky with a ladder.

Do you realize that your statement is ironic????



Of course atheism is a man made concept. Its the idea of men that comes to men. It doesn't, unlike religious or spiritual concepts pretend otherwise. Atheism is a boring little man made concept about God theories. (another man made concept)


Now to the second part...."The greatest God concepts say that God is beyond all concept and cannot be known intellectually....anyone trying to go beyond concept with words and thoughts are as clever as children trying to climbing [sic] to the sky with a ladder."


That statement in and of itself proves its own flaw.


By deciding that "God" is beyond anything you are using human concepts and intellect to try to describe something that by its very nature IS A HUMAN CONCEPT.

This is probably going to go straight over your head so I won't debate it but this in a nutshell is what atheism is rejecting.

Its like saying


"God is beyond everything, it defies definition, it defies meaning......here's what I think it means though......"

Again. Many spiritual concepts HAVE COME NATURALLY TO PEOPLE.



Exactly hence why the religious greats of the past say one must transcend concept to experience truth or God.



That is the best we can do until we experience it for ourselves. Many people have experienced it themselves and say things like "silence is the best etaching" etc.

Even in physics we have to go beyond the physical to describe the physical. For an example in quatum physics we cant describe matter unless we use quantum waves which most scientists dont take to be real but mathematical symbols of where a particle is possibily located before observation.

Also if atheism cant prove that God or the flying spagetti monster doesnt exist then how can it prove it doesnt exist? Atheism has to use concepts to justift their own concept. So atheism and spiritualism are just as valid as each other as far as concepts go.

One difficult point in my life was when I was ordered to go to AA (yes kids, old man mule was a drunk) and I had heard people talk about them forcing religion on you. This turned out to not be the case. I was told I needed to find "a higher power" than myself. It didn't take me long to think of the Earth as a living, sentient, being that has a life of it's own. I don't worshop it in the sense that others do, but I certainly prayed to it often enough. Praying is not much different in my case of someone who counts to 10 to calm themselves down. So in a sense, I too, can say I beleive in prayer.

Brave New World....I don't beleive in physics either. The "Laws" change every century...

Good post.

What you fail to realize is that many of the mystics and perennial philosophers didnt "decide" God is beyond anything. But experienced it. Hence much of their writings is putting into words the best they can their personal revelation of their expeirence with the universe.

lol...you might want to amend that after you read my edit!

I agree. Quantum physics has shown how little we know. I was just using physics as a point to illustrate my point.

lol.....then thank you.

you know, in a way, I like this too BNW, I have pretty much concluded that God is well... ALL. He (or it) is an experience, yes, people have written about God and their experience, but the true experience is the light within. I won't lie, I have what I believe is a true experience, which required me to change my entire world view an my place within this world. It was not easy, but to me, it was true--true enough to change my entire lifestyle. That's profound, and I'll never change my view. If it wasn't God inspired as I think it was... then that's ok too, I didn't harm anyone in the process but instead helped. So either way it's a win-win, and it's a win for me, because for the first time in my life I've been happy. I don't necessarily attribute that to being a "Christian" but instead, I know my life for the last 10 years has been... well... for the benefit of society. Yes, it's religious, but to me, there is no difference... if I go to hell because I didn't believe the Bible was inerrant, then so be it. It was all a figment of my imagination... It's ok, no regrets.

You are a very liberal christian indeed. I wish there were more like you.

The confusion, true, may be due to your - and other people's - different interpretation of what an Atheist is.

You define it as someone who doesn't believe in every god, but could be someone who believes in a specific god - hence your statement that a Christian could be an Atheist regarding Zeus. I think, and in my opinion this is the common interpretation, an Atheist is someone who does not believe in ANY god - the concept of divinity is nonsensical in their opinion. While I stand ready to be shouted down about this I would describe anyone who believed in any or all gods - they accept the concept of divinity as existent - a Theist.

I don't subscribe to any religions description of what divinity may entail, however I do not consider myself an Atheist as I am open to the possibility that some divinity might exist. I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion nor your self-description of what an Atheist may, or may not, be. However to assign any confusion to others preconceptions is a little...egocentric.

An interesting debate anyway...

That's why I say that its based on perspective. Your mystics concluded that this "thing" that they connected with is "God" they DID decide this.

That's why nearly every religion has a prophet of some sort or another because the only way to justify this line of thinking is to suggest that the GREAT AND MIGHTY AGPAR answered back in some way or made his presence known.

ITs STILL a human concept. The greatest mystic out there is still a HUMAN and its from his perspective UP to this supposed GOD being rather than GOD down, the way everyone suggests it is.

Try to pause on that for a sec and realize that no matter how broadly this God is painted , no matter how outside the human concept we try to make it, its still based on human concepts.


Here's an easy way to understand what I mean. Anyone who has watched Star Trek or some sort of show like that will realize that no matter how "alien" they try to make their creatures, its still a guy in a costume. And we know this. We know that the guys with crap piled all over their faces are human.

We know that in Alien and Predator or Independence Day they aliens that have been created are based on human concepts, they are based on creatures that we can conceptualize.

In Dune there was some dude floating around in a big tank and that was a great effort and thinking outside the human concept but it was STILL based on human concepts because it floated and etc etc etc.

To me as an Atheist I can always see the HUMAN behind the God. No matter how hard a religion tries to make it "not human" and beyond our comprehension and mystical and "out there" or "in here" its all based on human concepts.

That's why Christianity said God made us in his image. No way around it. We made every God in OUR image one way or another.

You do realize the AGPAR you keep refering to...is just a man in a suit, don't you?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself!

Who has said otherwise? I stated earlier that atheism is a man made concept as well to explain another man made concept.

You seem to have a real need to "equate" atheism with religion and I think that not too far down the line you will be an atheist yourself because it seems to me you are much too defensive about your beliefs, that smells like self justification of doubt to me.?


Leonardo I never meant this thread to speak for everyone and I take a real offense at you calling me egocentric. I thought it was pretty obvious that I am not trying to speak for all atheists since all atheists have different ways of explaining their views.

Hence why I said earlier that the mystics said that God is symbolic what what is beyond it. And that God in it's purity is beyond thought, word and concept. Sheesh




I love you truethat. Let love reign over us!

Symbolism of a STILL HUMAN concept. There's no way out of it. No matter what its still human.

Love you too brave! LOL

Exactly I admit this on all the posts. Hence why the mystics say you must go beyond the symbolism.......



Im glad you do.

Why take offence? I think my own interpretations are right as well and that's as egocentric as any other's pov. I wasn't meaning you were being overbearing or self-centered, if that's what you took my meaning as. I meant you were looking at things from your pov and to say the confusion lay with others is to deny them their own pov.

Look, if you jumped to the wrong conclusions about what I said then I'm sorry, I had no intent to cause offence.

in reply to the first post. . .


you have the definition of athiest, wrong, , , im sorry to say but if u dont believe in one god, it doesnt make u athiest. u have to not believe in ANY god whatsoever to be a true athiest, or we might as well call the whole cristian, muslim. . . well every religious person an athiest.



google athiesm, read all definitions u find, and then u can believe me.

Thanks for the clarification matey........That's how I view things as well even though I'm Christian (on paper anyway).......

Thaphantum was looking for the answer to my MAN UP GOD DOWN examples so I'm bumping this.

I also want to explain to people like thaphantum and tags that you should try to really focus on getting you questions through despite people who refuse to listen to you and try to get every thread of yours closed down.

I'd just pop them on ignore like most people do and then continue the debate or discussion.

I really am interested in having a dialogue about this.

Leonardo I see what you are saying about it being egocentric to some degree. You are saying that "expecting them to understand me" is a bit egocentric is that right?

Well my thread was directed at people who are questioning and interested in my POV but then tend to pigeon hole me into a misconception.

Not just Christians in general.

I totally understand this thinking...

In the world of business we actually call it "Top Down Thinking" and companies are designed with the CEO as "God" (good, bad or indifferent, or even incompentent) and everyone else reports up and does the CEO's bidding in respect to the company (alot of CEO's are held accountable by shareholders, but that's a bit of a different analogy). Perhaps the VP's could be considered "disciples" and everyone else are the faithful followers. The ones that aren't... don't stay around long or switch to a new CEO, company or God if you want to draw the analogy.

Now, there are some people who you will hear say "Oh, I could never work at a big company, I hate working for someone else!" These are probably what I would say are the "Atheists" of the corporate world and they don't want anything but to be only the "boss of themselves". These are the folks that that like to strike out on their own and they take that risk with their retirement, 401K's and Health Insurance and have decided that "God" or the "CEO" is not essential to their retirement or salvation if you will.

Yes, I understand Atheists and their MAN up thinking, a LOT of people think that way, it takes courage too. But me, little old me, I have been and always will be a top down thinker, it's what suits me best, I'm not that much of a risk taker.

Yes, I am by my nature a corporate cog, I am a God Cog too and I KNOW it.

That's so interesting MissMels because I too do not do well at large companies and prefer to work for myself where I can exert control over my paradigm.

It's probably worth mentioning that I'm not entirely a corporate cog... yes, I work for a company, but I'm a consultant, so I do bounce from job to job and company to company. My own loyalty isn't to a single corporation, except bringing in the clients for my rather loosely organize consulting firm. Which is probably a clue as to how I ended up with the faith I did.

That's a fair bit of what I was meaning



Was also wondering if the confusion/misconception was yours and not others? (waits for eruption of Mt. Truethat )



It's an interesting idea - the MAN UP, GOD DOWN thing. I am quite happy working on my own or in an organisation, does this mean my Agnostic nature is expressing itself through all aspects of my life? Is our religious 'creed' simply one expression of our intrinsic nature. Perhaps people who are Theist have to be Theist as it is their nature to be; similarly Atheists have to be Atheists etc...?

Of course this is generalising and might not be true in specific case. Still, worth pondering...

I think it really is worth pondering... of course there are always exceptions, but your world view and the nature of how you operate in life, often times are a clue as to how you "believe" or not. I have no difficulty sayin this at all. What's more interesting to consider is how that personal nature came about. I'm not convinced it's conditioning or genetics. It's something else, I'm just not sure what yet.

I know this is off-topic, but my inner geek is stronger. The guy floating in the big tank was indeed, human. The guy, a navigator, was soo mutated and dependand by the spice (or melange, has you want to call it) that he needed to breath it.

Which misconception? I am not sure what your point is? I started this thread because every time tags or thaphantum try to ask difficult questions we get the tag team whiners rolling out and trying to derail the thread by flaming or taking it OT so it gets shut down.

This thread was in direct response to a thread that was shut down. So it might come across as something other than that.

Which misconception of mine are you referring to?


I do think its interesting about the work ethic and the religious beliefs, I'm curious. I might start a poll about it...

evin in star trek voyager the aliens are like humans, the Q for instance, they look just like a human, but have powers. . . the borg are machines and they "assimilate poeple" by injecting nanoprobes into the bloodstream, the borg are huminoids as well, the only species i know on star trek voyager that ive seen that arent huminoids are well i dont know the name off the top of my head but they were multipeds with tentacles. . . so it is human concepts that drive the human race today.

In a pluralistic society you can certianly find examples of this. A person may shop around to find an "organization" that fits, be it "work", "social", "religious", etc. You will also find those that are far more willing to accept what they are told/given.

I would not expect to find a strong correlation between "worldview" and "how you operate" though.

It would be interesting to see if how people work and how they view their roll in society has any play into how they "believe" ... I'm sure it does.

BTW, I love that avitar Hyper... That's a Hyacinth Macaw, one of my all time favorite companion pets.