What if god does not know of you

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Adjuvant

I advice to read my post again. Nowhere do I make the statement you claim I am making. And I don't subscribe to the sentiment you're attributing to me.

It seems your prejudice towards atheists got the better of you there.

 

[Adjuvant]

@Adjuvant

I advice to read my post again. Nowhere do I make the statement you claim I am making. And I don't subscribe to the sentiment you're attributing to me.

It seems your prejudice towards atheists got the better of you there.

I told you that you couldn't see it.

I don't have a prejudice toward atheists. I admit a prejudice toward anti-christians, though. It's unfounded and mean. I shouldn't do it.

edit: here's the part wherein you can't distinguish between "atheist" and "anti-christian", right?

 

[Smellincoffee]

The obsessive concern an all-powerful, all-knowing being had with humans -- with every facet of our lives -- was my first hint that such care was invented by us. Maybe we're a conceited species, or maybe it's natural for any sentient creature to think the world revolves around it; objectivity is acquired, not granted. Our native belief that the universe revolves around is is hard to shake off, but that egotism is easier to see in others than in ourselves. When someone is mad at the universe because their spouse left them or because their grandfather died, I wonder...do they think the universe or God exists to keep everyone around them happy? It's the same when a tornado strikes; people ask "Why did this have to happen?" and look for meaning; they'll say God is punishing them, or God sent it as part of a mysterious plan. All this seems so self-obsessed and contrived. Life happens. It's hard, but we just have to deal with it. Does a cheetah cub starving because its mother was gored while hunting for food have an existential crisis?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I told you that you couldn't see it.

I don't have a prejudice toward atheists. I admit a prejudice toward anti-christians, though. It's unfounded and mean. I shouldn't do it.

edit: here's the part wherein you can't distinguish between "atheist" and "anti-christian", right?

No. Here is the part where I am asking you to quote me where I say all experiences can be explained scientifically.

And since my departed mother was very Christian and I consider her to be the most loving person I ever knew, I think I am very able to make that distinction.

 

[Adjuvant]

No. Here is the part where I am asking you to quote me where I say all experiences can be explained scientifically.

After all, what harm does it do for me to imagine myself having had a personal spiritual experience.

...I understand their motivation, even though they differ from what mine would be.

Afterthought, because I have had discussion with religious people I am convinced that the experiences of religious people are little different than mine.

I might call a conviction intuition while religious people might see a divine source of the conviction. I might call 'talking to God' an inner dialogue. I can't say that it is, but it's my interpretation.

Then you conflict yourself, because you're still "working this out".

The differences arise when we try to explain those experiences. And since the working of the brain in these matters, and the mechanisms of divine interaction are far from clear-cut, there's loads of unknowns and uncertainties to wonder about.

I never said you're a proponent of anti-metaphysicism. None of the answers are good for "you", though.

It seems you're running around, initiating spiritual conversations in a veiled attempt to ask "who am I", leaving just enough room someone has the answer, but categorically rejecting everything you've heard so far, for yourself, because of what you consider empirical proof the testimonies are completely unverifiable. It doesn't make you "bad", it just makes you "you".

And since my departed mother was very Christian and I consider her to be the most loving person I ever knew, I think I am very able to make that distinction.

I'm sorry for your loss. I understand you think you can distinguish.

edit: side note... listening to all the "internet atheist" stuff isn't helping you, either. It's hurting your own pursuit.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

After all, what harm does it do for me to imagine myself having had a personal spiritual experience.

...I understand their motivation, even though they differ from what mine would be.

Afterthought, because I have had discussion with religious people I am convinced that the experiences of religious people are little different than mine.

I might call a conviction intuition while religious people might see a divine source of the conviction. I might call 'talking to God' an inner dialogue. I can't say that it is, but it's my interpretation.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you get from what I wrote to: all experiences can be explained scientifically.

I explicitly said "I can't say that it is". Merely it's my interpretation. I'm not stating either one is right or wrong. Just my subjective interpretation differs from other people's subjective interpretation. Which is fine.

Then you conflict yourself, because you're still "working this out".

Because I am. I'm not conflicting myself since I added the qualifier "I can't say that it is". And I distrust anyone who claims they aren't still working it out. I don't claim to be the final arbiter. The statements you made come closer to appointing yourself as one when you accuse me of not seeing the forest. By doing that you have degraded my interpretation as a lesser one than yours. I'm not seeing the whole picture, you apparently are. I am not the one who's making the judgements here.

I never said you're a proponent of anti-metaphysicism. None of the answers are good for "you", though.

Now you're assuming I am looking for answers. I am not. I am looking for understanding. I said so in my very first post. Really, please read my first post again without any prejudice. You're jumping to conclusions which cannot be drawn from the statements I made.

It seems you're running around, initiating spiritual conversations in a veiled attempt to ask "who am I", leaving just enough room someone has the answer, but categorically rejecting everything you've heard so far, for yourself, because of what you consider empirical proof the testimonies are completely unverifiable. It doesn't make you "bad", it just makes you "you".

That's not true.

I am not initiating those conversations to get clarity on my own point of view. I am initiating them to get clarity on other people's point of view. And doing so I have gained understanding why other people's views differ from mine. And without qualifying that as lesser interpretation I get why people become religious.

And I am not accusing them of not seeing the forest. Think about that.

I'm sorry for your loss. I understand you think you can distinguish.

edit: side note... listening to all the "internet atheist" stuff isn't helping you, either. It's hurting your own pursuit.

It would be if I felt any sort of relevance to atheist group think. I don't buy into that. If you have 10 atheists, you have 10 different points of view. If you have 10 Christians you have 10 different points of view. If you have 10 Muslims, you get where I'm going. And I know I can distinguish. You don't know enough about me to make the judgement I only think I can.

When you say "listening to all the "internet atheist" stuff isn't helping you, either." does that mean it's not helping me because you're judging me by all the stuff other people who also happen to be atheist have said about religions?

If so, isn't it a good thing we're having a discussion about it, to make you realise that not all atheists subscribe to some sort of atheist agenda?

edit: Afterthought. We've been focussing on my point of view the last couple of posts, and I still am waiting to be offended. The only irritation so far has been that I can't seem to get my point of view across. But we could have been talking politics and I'd have the same annoyance

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure if the topic of the thread will generate more debate, but i will have to ask you (both) to not be off-topic anymore
A reminder to all that this thread is not about arguing the probability of a god existing. It is the question on whether, *assuming* a god does exist, we would be better off if that god actually has any link to our history.

 

[El_Machinae]

edit: here's the part wherein you can't distinguish between "atheist" and "anti-christian", right?

Kinda, but I might pull out the same vibe as "hate the sin, love the sinner". Now, obviously, not really in the same ballpark, play with the gist. BUT, you can be 'against' an idea while being 'for' the person who holds the idea. I think that one can be both atheist and [edit] not anti-Christian at the same time.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Really?

Ok. I'll drop it. Shame though. I liked the discussion.

Adjuvant, if you wish to continue, feel free to PM me.

 

[timtofly]

We are talking about if God knows us, but it seems we do not even take the time to know each other. Just saying.

 

[Kyriakos]

We are talking about if God knows us, but it seems we do not even take the time to know each other. Just saying.

Maybe the latter is also impossible, just in a different way

 

[timtofly]

I am beginning to wonder.

 

[TrafficJam]

A reminder to all that this thread is not about arguing the probability of a god existing. It is the question on whether, *assuming* a god does exist, we would be better off if that god actually has any link to our history.

What are the parameters for this god? Is he an all-powerful god who created everything, and thus everyone and everything is responsible to him, and there is none other like him (i.e. the Christian God)? Or is he just an anomoly of nature that somehow has god-like powers?

(sorry if this was addressed earlier... I only skimmed the rest of the thread.)

 

[Kyriakos]

What are the parameters for this god? Is he an all-powerful god who created everything, and thus everyone and everything is responsible to him, and there is none other like him (i.e. the Christian God)? Or is he just an anomoly of nature that somehow has god-like powers?

(sorry if this was addressed earlier... I only skimmed the rest of the thread.)

^Those parameters are not at all set The question is (given any parameters you want to think of) whether humans would be in a better position if that god is largely or fully unaware of human history, or does not directly take part in it anyway (mostly equal to not knowing of it, and to a less degree due to possible indifference, but you can come up with other reasons for that if you want to).

This does not have to mean that god would not be part of human life. He may not, but god might be as well. It mostly means that humans are expected to be in some form of correlation to that god, regardless of whether that is even manifested in life here.

That god can be unconscious/conscious/hyperconscious or otherconscious. My own allusion was that in my view such a god would be more likely to be deemed as non-conscious by a human observer, while still (obviously) warranting being a god. For example if the entirety of the cosmos (all universe or over-universes and so on) is taken as a "being", then that could be deemed as a god to humans, as long as it reacts with humans in some way that ultimately will alter our relation to that god.

But yeah, like i said those parameters are not set, so they are not the basis of the question in the thread, although they can be used in a reflection on that question.

 

[TrafficJam]

I tend to think that pretty much if it's any other kind of god other than the Christian one, then it really wouldn't matter if that god had any knowledge or interaction with us. Of course, I say that as a Christian, so take that for whatever it's worth to you.

Christianity depends on God's interaction with us. We wouldn't have a Bible if he didn't inspire those that wrote it. And we'd have no chance at redemption, salvation, and heaven if God didn't send his Son to earth to die in our place. And those facts lead those who believe it to lead good lives in response to the interaction that God has had in their lives.

I'm not sure if any other kind of gods would really require that kind of interaction. A fair amount of other religions are more-or-less... and forgive my gross over-simplification and generalization here... a "do good and you're ok" kind of model. I suppose the argument could be made for them that you'd need some kind of god to actually tell you what good and bad is, but it seems that most people are ok with defining good and bad based on their own experiences and inner morality, so whether or not a god told them anything probably wouldn't have much of an affect on them.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, apostle Paul even used the temple "to the unknown god" (τω Αγνώστω Θε&#974 when he went to Athens, so as to argue that was related to the god he had to speak about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_God

From the art, mythology and history of the archaic-classical-hellenistic (and then roman) era it is easy to note that a number of moralities did exist, many of them being founded by distinct philosophical schools Virtues and which ones were better to live by was a very common issue in many of the schools of thought in the pre-christian time.

 

[TrafficJam]

Well, apostle Paul even used the temple "to the unknown god" (τω Αγνώστω Θε&#974 when he went to Athens, so as to argue that was related to the god he had to speak about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_God

Paul's reference to an unknown god was just his way of saying, "look, you guys have a ton of gods, and you've even got a temple to an unknown god that you use as a placeholder just in case." Then he went on to tell them who this supposed unknown god was. Not to imply that God hadn't interacted with humans, but rather to point out that he did, but they were just looking in the wrong place.

It'd be like me talking about some unknown form of ice that was created in my refrigerator, and then you come along and point out to me that I can't find the ice in my fridge because it's not there at all - it's actually in my freezer.

From the art, mythology and history of the archaic-classical-hellenistic (and then roman) era it is easy to note that a number of moralities did exist, many of them being founded by distinct philosophical schools Virtues and which ones were better to live by was a very common issue in many of the schools of thought in the pre-christian time.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone would come to the same conclusion as to what was good and what was bad. More along the lines of everyone doing what they think is right and expecting that to be good enough for whatever god might be out there. As opposed to Christianity, which is pretty clear about there not being anything we can do that is good enough (hence the need for God's interaction).

 

[Angst]

I didn't mean to imply that everyone would come to the same conclusion as to what was good and what was bad. More along the lines of everyone doing what they think is right and expecting that to be good enough for whatever god might be out there. As opposed to Christianity, which is pretty clear about there not being anything we can do that is good enough (hence the need for God's interaction).

This isn't really the case. Other religious texts are just as invasive into individual behavior as the Christian one is. At least the succesful ones that I have a basic understanding of.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

We are talking about if God knows us, but it seems we do not even take the time to know each other. Just saying.

How about first thing first? Know thyself. After that knowing God and all the rest should be fairly easy....

 

[Kyriakos]

Edit: just go to the next page pls/ a twist in safeguarding against being off-topic