Thread: Willfull Misunderstanding

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I see a lot of threads asking some very superficial questions about religion and it makes me wonder if the atheists on this board purposely aim to misrepresent theism in order to justify their own refusal to even attempt to find understanding. Why is it that while you question the idea of god you limit yourself to the most basic concepts and descriptions?

I couldn't agree more

Could you give me an example about basic concepts and descriptions?

Originally Posted by Unelias

Could you give me an example about basic concepts and descriptions?

Yeah, can we get an idea of what you mean? You're accusing people of some very vague things here.

Xaqaria, if you want to raise the level of discourse here, maybe you should start a thread which discusses what you consider to be less superficial aspects of religion?

On the top of that, I am not one of those aggressive ones, I seek to find more knowledge and understand things. So please, bring it on so we can have a good conversation :yumdumdoodledum:

Well, there's a number of posts I see that say "because of such and such God can't exist" or "How can God exist because of such and such?" and I just shake my head because my beliefs in God aren't even compatible with the presumptions they make.

Originally Posted by Kushna Mufeed

Well, there's a number of posts I see that say "because of such and such God can't exist" or "How can God exist because of such and such?" and I just shake my head because my beliefs in God aren't even compatible with the presumptions they make.

+1

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I see a lot of threads asking some very superficial questions about religion and it makes me wonder if the atheists on this board purposely aim to misrepresent theism in order to justify their own refusal to even attempt to find understanding. Why is it that while you question the idea of god you limit yourself to the most basic concepts and descriptions?

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I see a lot of threads asking some very superficial questions about religion and it makes me wonder if the atheists on this board purposely aim to misrepresent theism in order to justify their own refusal to even attempt to find understanding. Why is it that while you question the idea of god you limit yourself to the most basic concepts and descriptions?

I'am with you, I have some stuff to add but might add it later.
Anyways thanks

Originally Posted by Unelias

Could you give me an example about basic concepts and descriptions?

I am talking about taking religious and spiritual descriptions solely at face value. For instance, any arguments against an anthropomorphic god. Questions that put an omnipotent diety on a human level in order to make sense of its motives and actions seems silly and pointless.

Not to single UM out but his thread, "If I were god...", is a perfect example of limiting both yourself and any possible ideas you might form about what god is. The line of reasoning that UM postulates in his thread, that if he were god there would be no suffering, is useless because it limits the motivations and actions of a limitless entity. I believe it is safe to assume that it is impossible to say what one might do if they were god. The concept of one human consciousness being a god isn't even a valid line of reasoning at all, since the concept of 'I' hardly makes sense when refering to an omnipresence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I am talking about taking religious and spiritual descriptions solely at face value. For instance, any arguments against an anthropomorphic god. Questions that put an omnipotent diety on a human level in order to make sense of its motives and actions seems silly and pointless.

Not to single UM out but his thread, "If I were god...", is a perfect example of limiting both yourself and any possible ideas you might form about what god is. The line of reasoning that UM postulates in his thread, that if he were god there would be no suffering, is useless because it limits the motivations and actions of a limitless entity. I believe it is safe to assume that it is impossible to say what one might do if they were god. The concept of one human consciousness being a god isn't even a valid line of reasoning at all, since the concept of 'I' hardly makes sense when refering to an omnipresence.

Well in that case I have not much to say to advance to thread since I think deities as anthropomorphic. ( I am not sure of the word since I have accustomed for Finnish terms when discussing these things) and I don't feel like strechting my imagination too far at the morning

For me a concept of deity is nothing special compared to us mortals, except for their cabability. Not limitless or what ever

Thank you for clarification though

edit : I can of course exchange thoughts if you give some ideas but this is how I define a deity =)

Anthropomorphic - ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I am talking about taking religious and spiritual descriptions solely at face value. For instance, any arguments against an anthropomorphic god. Questions that put an omnipotent diety on a human level in order to make sense of its motives and actions seems silly and pointless.

Not to single UM out but his thread, "If I were god...", is a perfect example of limiting both yourself and any possible ideas you might form about what god is. The line of reasoning that UM postulates in his thread, that if he were god there would be no suffering, is useless because it limits the motivations and actions of a limitless entity. I believe it is safe to assume that it is impossible to say what one might do if they were god. The concept of one human consciousness being a god isn't even a valid line of reasoning at all, since the concept of 'I' hardly makes sense when refering to an omnipresence.

So just to be sure are you using the "humans can never understand the motives of god, his ways are beyond our understanding, etc etc" argument? I don't want to scathingly attack a strawman, so I want to make sure this is your argument

*willful

deities as anthropomorphic? what are we, greek?

where is the understanding of mysticism?

Originally Posted by juroara

deities as anthropomorphic? what are we, greek?

where is the understanding of mysticism?

So is greek view of deities somehow lesser than the way other beliefs picture them? O.o

I find that quite odd comment.

Originally Posted by wannywan

*willful

Thanks for your contribution.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

So just to be sure are you using the "humans can never understand the motives of god, his ways are beyond our understanding, etc etc" argument? I don't want to scathingly attack a strawman, so I want to make sure this is your argument

It's not.

Originally Posted by juroara

deities as anthropomorphic? what are we, greek?

where is the understanding of mysticism?

Who's we? Almost every religion anthropomorphizes its god or gods to one degree or another. Gods are either represented blatantly as bipedal organic creatures, usually with full beards; or they are just voices in the sky with emotions disturbingly similar to our own. One way or another, humans tend to project their own desires, ideas and shortcomings on to the authority figure they hope to have looking over them.

The trouble is, these shallow views of what a god is is usually as far as the critics will go. An atheist might think to his or herself that obviously there is probably not a bearded man in the sky watching all us pathetic little humans and getting mad every time a couple of us copulate without first performing a meaningless ritual, and believe this thought is enough proof that no god exists.

Silly gods are discarded right away. For other types of god, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' applies.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I see a lot of threads asking some very superficial questions about religion and it makes me wonder if the atheists on this board purposely aim to misrepresent theism in order to justify their own refusal to even attempt to find understanding. Why is it that while you question the idea of god you limit yourself to the most basic concepts and descriptions?

So then outline your definition of your deity, and then we'll have some other material to work from. Honestly, you all claim that you don't believe in mainstream deities, and then talk down on the atheists when we don't know what the hell you're thinking of because no one's either written it down, or it isn't common enough to be common knowledge.

It's unlikely that "misunderstanding" is willful.

Atheists usually haven't studied religion in depth. If you went to Church sometimes or read the Bible, it's not a proof that you know anything in depth either. Do you see anybody quoting actual verses from the Bible or from renowned works as proof of their words? I'm afraid that nobody is seriously representing religion here, and it's not the fault of atheists.

The discussion is on the level of "common sense" or "logic".

Well, like in such an example... Let's take a statement "If god existed then there'd be no suffering". A person assumes that god must care for him and such things. But wait, not only the Christian god told Eve that she'll bear kids in pain and Adam that he'll have to work hard to obtain food, he even caused the flood and other horrible things! The definition of god as an entity whose purpose is to eliminate suffering is not even in accord with religion the person is arguing... Not enough knowledge, even of the Bible.

But I don't know how things can be different. We aren't educated in these matters enough, and somebody who is won't choose this forum for discussing them

God is the creator and/or ruler of the universe. That's what the word 'God' means. Okay? Good. I hope we've all learned something today.

Originally Posted by Arutad

It's unlikely that "misunderstanding" is willful.

Atheists usually haven't studied religion in depth. If you went to Church sometimes or read the Bible, it's not a proof that you know anything in depth either. Do you see anybody quoting actual verses from the Bible or from renowned works as proof of their words? I'm afraid that nobody is seriously representing religion here, and it's not the fault of atheists.

The discussion is on the level of "common sense" or "logic".

Well, like in such an example... Let's take a statement "If god existed then there'd be no suffering". A person assumes that god must care for him and such things. But wait, not only the Christian god told Eve that she'll bear kids in pain and Adam that he'll have to work hard to obtain food, he even caused the flood and other horrible things! The definition of god as an entity whose purpose is to eliminate suffering is not even in accord with religion the person is arguing... Not enough knowledge, even of the Bible.

But I don't know how things can be different. We aren't educated in these matters enough, and somebody who is won't choose this forum for discussing them

Actually, the religious education at least among certain members of this forum is higher than the laity, and is better even than most devout followers of any particular religious doctrine.

Unless you are a christian, why do you only look for examples of consistency in the christian bible?

Originally Posted by Xei

God is the creator and/or ruler of the universe. That's what the word 'God' means. Okay? Good. I hope we've all learned something today.

This definition ignores the possibility of an infinite reality that has no ultimate creator, and no ultimate authority.

Edit: Actually, no; I take that back. I'm comfortable with that definition.

I'm glad of that... pantheism drives me up the wall.

I forgot to mention in my definition the other condition I usually include, which is that the being must be conscious on some level (otherwise God could mean the (naturalistic) Big Bang for instance, which is pretty useless as the two are used in juxtaposition in most contexts).

Do you believe in such a being? Personally I'm sceptical. This could possibly be a simulated reality, in which case there could conceivably be some Christoffesque (the Truman Show) character 'up there'. I can't think of many other realistic options.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, the religious education at least among certain members of this forum is higher than the laity, and is better even than most devout followers of any particular religious doctrine.

No offense, but I doubt that. Especially "better even than most devout followers of any particular religious doctrine" sounds incongruous. What is this forum, a hidden nest of geniuses, more knowledgeable in ANY doctrine than most educated people?

Unless you are a christian, why do you only look for examples of consistency in the christian bible?

I'm an atheist (surprise), but mostly people in the West are referring to a Christian god whenever there is a discussion about religion. It's no "insisting" to use it in an example, but it was convenient.

But if you want to discuss your own idea of god, then it makes no sense to me personally since you and I can imagine anything at all. There's no way to argue somebody's imagination, it's pure philosophy in this case.

This is a good position for atheists actually: they argue ANY idea of "god", not a particular god. In this way the argument is about general philosophy of religion, not about religion. And in this case there's no need for knowledge, of course.

Originally Posted by Arutad

No offense, but I doubt that. Especially "better even than most devout followers of any particular religious doctrine" sounds incongruous. What is this forum, a hidden nest of geniuses, more knowledgeable in ANY doctrine than most educated people?

I would argue that lucid dreaming does attract a more intelligent crowd than the greater norm. I would also say it is obvious that the average member here doesn't know more about christianity than a devout christian or more about buddhism than a devout buddhist, but they know more about religions in general than either of those. I have met plenty of devout christians who haven't even opened a quran or the bhagavad gita or the pali texts but I know that a lot of members have at least read portions of many of these different religious works.

Originally Posted by Arutad

I'm an atheist (surprise), but mostly people in the West are referring to a Christian god whenever there is a discussion about religion. It's no "insisting" to use it in an example, but it was convenient.

But if you want to discuss your own idea of god, then it makes no sense to me personally since you and I can imagine anything at all. There's no way to argue somebody's imagination, it's pure philosophy in this case.

This is a good position for atheists actually: they argue ANY idea of "god", not a particular god. In this way the argument is about general philosophy of religion, not about religion. And in this case there's no need for knowledge, of course.

I think it does take a fair bit of knowledge to know when your imagination or mine is consistent with the popular beliefs of humanity as a whole.