Reintroduce God

[JGG]

In another thread a poster said this:

I'd go further with your idea, Freodin. Athiests respond to God emotionally negatively, not because they're specially emotional, but because any term previously seen as ridiculous or incoherent, especially when welded to people whose behaviors are overall such, means the term has a negative emotional flavor.

So what happens? God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM. There are plenty of other less emotionally (i.e., ridicule-instilled) images to use that are closer to the epistemological problems the FSM analogy attempts to capture, but we're left with a ridiculous one. Because God is seen as ridiculous because of an emotional association with "God" and previous experiences with bad theologies or practitioners of bad theologies, or both.

So we need a new term, but the moment we use a new term that doesn't have negative emotional associations (say, Void rather than God), we're left parting with the vast majority of theology, which will only confuse people, and plenty of them will rightfully refuse to adopt such a change in terminology.

A mess. I just say atheists should be aware of their emotional connections, of the psychological influence that runs parallel to, and influences, reason. That there's no such thing as "just reason" with virtually any reason, given that any concept associated with reason has a history with either good or bad arguments and therefore runs the risk of positive emotional pairing with the concept in question or bad emotional pairing. Just like theists are accused of being emotional, and of having their emotional connections blur up an otherwise objective consideration of reasons, so it goes with certain atheists. To say otherwise means you're exempt from psychological influences.

There's a lot in here I agree with (a lot I disagree with). Often when people go on about "God" I will zone out. I doubt I'll hear anything new or interesting. Ditto with certain God-concepts or attributes that I think are ridiculous.

However, throw in a new title, or new attributes, I get curious. Start exploring aspects that I merely find are undetectable but not impossible I take interest.

So, let's reintroduce God. How about a makeover?

What are the comprehensive attributes that your God has? Which popular attributes do you think are ridiculous and damaging and need to be stripped away? Which are questionable but may be there? If we were to reintroduce God what would It be?

My plan is to bow out of this thread and only comment for clarification (or outrage if nobody posts).

Have at it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM."

I don't see it this way at all.

The point of the FSM is not that God is just as ridiculous as a flying pasta sidedish. It is that God simply doesn't have the glamour of respectability and credibility that the concept has for Christians. The FSM is simply a way of pointing that out through the use of an extreme example.

None of this is necessarily associated with "negative emotions". I find it amusing how often someone tries to play armchair psychologist with atheists and declare that it's all just an emotional reaction. Atheists do have emotions, but I generally find atheists to object to God very soberly, not as some kneejerk reaction to something that seems ridiculous.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGG]

"God becomes associated with a negative emotion, a kneejerk reaction along the lines of ridiculousness. So then the atheist posits an analogy to God, and what does he use as a comparison? Something else ridiculous. Enter the FSM."

I don't see it this way at all.

The point of the FSM is not that God is just as ridiculous as a flying pasta sidedish. It is that God simply doesn't have the glamour of respectability and credibility that the concept has for Christians. The FSM is simply a way of pointing that out through the use of an extreme example.

None of this is necessarily associated with "negative emotions". I find it amusing how often someone tries to play armchair psychologist with atheists and declare that it's all just an emotional reaction. Atheists do have emotions, but I generally find atheists to object to God very soberly, not as some kneejerk reaction to something that seems ridiculous.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree with this. However, I'm dismissive of the same old portrayal of God. I don't have much interest in that. But the text seems to ackowledge that this portrayal is ridiculous in a lot ways. Maybe a fresh perspective is needed.

So here's a place to present a concept of the Christian God...or whatever we shall call it...that is more palatable. I'm not exactly holding my breath, but maybe something interesting will arise.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So here's a place to present a concept of the Christian God...or whatever we shall call it...that is more palatable. I'm not exactly holding my breath, but maybe something interesting will arise.

That would be interesting, but it will be interesting to see if this more palatable concept is like candy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

The Ebola virus causes a very negative emotional response in me. Yet, this doesn´t seem to keep me from believing in its existence.

But even though the emotional connotation or palatability of an idea doesn´t have much bearing on my acceptance, just like you, JGG, I would be highly interested in finally getting an idea of Received´s Void-concept.

 

[Colter]

In another thread a poster said this:



There's a lot in here I agree with (a lot I disagree with). Often when people go on about "God" I will zone out. I doubt I'll hear anything new or interesting. Ditto with certain God-concepts or attributes that I think are ridiculous.

However, throw in a new title, or new attributes, I get curious. Start exploring aspects that I merely find are undetectable but not impossible I take interest.

So, let's reintroduce God. How about a makeover?

What are the comprehensive attributes that your God has? Which popular attributes do you think are ridiculous and damaging and need to be stripped away? Which are questionable but may be there? If we were to reintroduce God what would It be?

My plan is to bow out of this thread and only comment for clarification (or outrage if nobody posts).

Have at it.

As a consistently positive teacher Jesus lived a God revealing life that left the older, inferior concepts of God to die on the vine, having served the purpose as scaffolding, preparing the way for the revelation of the Father in the life of the Son. To see Jesus is to see the Father.

* God is Love, and Gods love is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.

* Gods giving and lovable nature is such that he gives a part of himself to live within man. "I will put my pure spirit in thee."

* God is never jealous of man (perhaps for man) and he is never wrathful, vengeful or angry. Those characteristics are hardly worthy of being called human much less divine.

* God knows all things.

* God is omnipotent.

* God is limitless.

* God is the Supreme ruler.

* The sovereignty of God is unlimited, it is the fundamental fact of creation.

* God delegates this power and authority in his Sons.

* We get to the Father through the Sons.

 

[juvenissun]

In another thread a poster said this:



There's a lot in here I agree with (a lot I disagree with). Often when people go on about "God" I will zone out. I doubt I'll hear anything new or interesting. Ditto with certain God-concepts or attributes that I think are ridiculous.

However, throw in a new title, or new attributes, I get curious. Start exploring aspects that I merely find are undetectable but not impossible I take interest.

So, let's reintroduce God. How about a makeover?

What are the comprehensive attributes that your God has? Which popular attributes do you think are ridiculous and damaging and need to be stripped away? Which are questionable but may be there? If we were to reintroduce God what would It be?

My plan is to bow out of this thread and only comment for clarification (or outrage if nobody posts).

Have at it.

My God has this and that. But what does it have anything to do with you? He is not your God.

 

[Colter]

One of the problems with the religious writings of holy men preserved over the ages is that there isn't a process for eliminating the acceptable standards or concepts of God within each age. It would be like a science book that contained every theory held by scientist in the coarse of 5,000 years and defended as all being true at the same time.

The Bible books evolves, they get better at least up until the gospels. Then the Book of Revelation spoils everything!

 

[JGG]

My God has this and that. But what does it have anything to do with you? He is not your God.

Some people's God concept includes that they are also my God. I'm just curious. If you're God is a private one I respect that (so much, actually), but I am curious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As a consistently positive teacher Jesus lived a God revealing life that left the older, inferior concepts of God to die on the vine, having served the purpose as scaffolding, preparing the way for the revelation of the Father in the life of the Son. To see Jesus is to see the Father.

* God is Love, and Gods love is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.

* Gods giving and lovable nature is such that he gives a part of himself to live within man. "I will put my pure spirit in thee."

* God is never jealous of man (perhaps for man) and he is never wrathful, vengeful or angry. Those characteristics are hardly worthy of being called human much less divine.

* God knows all things.

* God is omnipotent.

* God is limitless.

* God is the Supreme ruler.

* The sovereignty of God is unlimited, it is the fundamental fact of creation.

* God delegates this power and authority in his Sons.

* We get to the Father through the Sons.

At least three of the things on your list here are redundant

 

[juvenissun]

Some people's God concept includes that they are also my God. I'm just curious. If you're God is a private one I respect that (so much, actually), but I am curious.

You have a god?
You know a little bit what a Christian God is. But I know nothing about your god. So I reversed you question, could you share with us two characters of your god?

 

[Colter]

At least three of the things on your list here are redundant

Im not going to argue with you about that. Where is your list?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Im not going to argue with you about that. Where is your list?

Why would I, an atheist, have a list of traits for a deity/deities when I don't even think they exist? I could be wrong, but it hardly puts me in a position to do that

 

[True Scotsman]

In another thread a poster said this:



There's a lot in here I agree with (a lot I disagree with). Often when people go on about "God" I will zone out. I doubt I'll hear anything new or interesting. Ditto with certain God-concepts or attributes that I think are ridiculous.

However, throw in a new title, or new attributes, I get curious. Start exploring aspects that I merely find are undetectable but not impossible I take interest.

So, let's reintroduce God. How about a makeover?

What are the comprehensive attributes that your God has? Which popular attributes do you think are ridiculous and damaging and need to be stripped away? Which are questionable but may be there? If we were to reintroduce God what would It be?

My plan is to bow out of this thread and only comment for clarification (or outrage if nobody posts).

Have at it.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[BL2KTN]

I have but one word for the creator.

Alpha.

All other sentiments are speculative.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have but one word for the creator.

Alpha.

All other sentiments are speculative.

No omega?

 

[BL2KTN]

Nope... sometimes art outlasts the artist.

 

[Colter]

Why would I, an atheist, have a list of traits for a deity/deities when I don't even think they exist? I could be wrong, but it hardly puts me in a position to do that

Just was wondering if you have compiled a list of positive concepts that were preexist in your mind that you used for comparison in your conclusion that others God concepts are unappealing and wrong.

In other words, when someone presents a statement wherein I believe that God is said to have committed an injustice, it's because I already have that value as part of my constitution as a comparison.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just was wondering if you have compiled a list of positive concepts that were preexist in your mind that you used for comparison in your conclusion that others God concepts are unappealing and wrong.

In other words, when someone presents a statement wherein I believe that God is said to have committed an injustice, it's because I already have that value as part of my constitution as a comparison.

How I would judge the actions of a deity wouldn't be any different than how I would judge a person.

 

[Chesterton]

Often when people go on about "God" I will zone out. I doubt I'll hear anything new or interesting. Ditto with certain God-concepts or attributes that I think are ridiculous.

However, throw in a new title, or new attributes, I get curious.

I wish the OP had been a bit more precise. "New" and "interesting" are two different things. Likewise, "title" and "attributes". I'd like to respond but am not sure what you're looking for.