Relationship with God (Whether or Not He Exists)

[variant]

Relationships involve interactions, so God must exist to have them.

So no, Atheists do not interact with things they don't believe in because that "interaction" would be one sided.

Similarly theists can not have a relationship with an abstract thought in lou of an actual God.

 

[bhsmte]

Relationships involve interactions, so God must exist to have them.

So no, Atheists do not interact with things they don't believe in because that "interaction" would be one sided.

Similarly theists can not have a relationship with an abstract thought in lou of an actual God.

The brain is very capable of manufacturing the perception of a relationship, if one has a strong enough need to.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Relationships involve interactions, so God must exist to have them.

So no, Atheists do not interact with things they don't believe in because that "interaction" would be one sided.

Similarly theists can not have a relationship with an abstract thought in lou of an actual God.

God does exist even to atheists: as an idea. Ideas can be very powerful, so just because something doesn't physically exist in reality doesn't mean that it has no impact on people. Think of all the great works of fiction that helped kids learn to read. None of Dr. Seuss's characters are real, but the wonder and fun they instill in children is real. So perhaps this isn't the sort of interaction most people would consider to be a relationship, but I can honestly say that even as an atheist, the character traits of god have inspired some of my poetry and short stories. God is a really good muse, for art and literature. And you don't have to believe in god to be inspired by god.

 

[variant]

The brain is very capable of manufacturing the perception of a relationship, if one has a strong enough need to.

We call this a delusion not a relationship.

God does exist even to atheists: as an idea. Ideas can be very powerful, so just because something doesn't physically exist in reality doesn't mean that it has no impact on people. Think of all the great works of fiction that helped kids learn to read. None of Dr. Seuss's characters are real, but the wonder and fun they instill in children is real. So perhaps this isn't the sort of interaction most people would consider to be a relationship, but I can honestly say that even as an atheist, the character traits of god have inspired some of my poetry and short stories. God is a really good muse, for art and literature. And you don't have to believe in god to be inspired by god.

Fiction exists true, but you don't react to a fiction but rather what it represents abstractly and how it relates to you.

 

[bhsmte]

We call this a delusion not a relationship.



Fiction exists true, but you don't interact with the caricature in fiction but rather what that caricature represents abstractly.

Sure, the delusion of a relationship, is still a relationship to the person with the delusion. To them, it is very real.

You have heard of the folks who have claimed to have been abducted by aliens and taken aboard a ship and being probed with medical devices. Many of these folks were given lie detector tests and even hypnotized and they passed with flying colors.

To them, their personal experience, was as real as it gets.

 

[variant]

Sure, the delusion of a relationship, is still a relationship to the person with the delusion. To them, it is very real.

You have heard of the folks who have claimed to have been abducted by aliens and taken aboard a ship and being probed with medical devices. Many of these folks were given lie detector tests and even hypnotized and they passed with flying colors.

To them, their personal experience, was as real as it gets.

As I said relationship requires interaction. What you are talking about seems real but it's just a projection.

Seeming real isn't the standard.

 

[bhsmte]

As I said relationship requires interaction. What you are talking about seems real but it's just a projection.

Seeming real isn't the standard.

I don't think you are getting what I am saying.

In some people, the human mind is more than capable of manufacturing the perception of interaction in a pretend relationship.

 

[variant]

I don't think you are getting what I am saying.

In some people, the human mind is more than capable of manufacturing the perception of interaction in a pretend relationship.

I get it, I'm just saying they aren't having a relationship.

 

[bhsmte]

I get it, I'm just saying they aren't having a relationship.

In reality no, but to them, they are.

 

[variant]

In reality no, but to them, they are.

Yes, I think I understand the psychology of it, or the mass psychology of it in this case.

Further, I think God becomes a personal God because brains are wired to have personal interactions.

 

[variant]

The problem with much of Christian spirituality is that nobody seems to know how God relates to human beings, especially in a non-salvific context, without saying empty phrases like, "have a personal relationship with Jesus," or "Jesus lives in your heart."

It's not a problem so much a good rhetorical device.

If you can get someone to imagine having a relationship with a personal deity it is much easier for them to believe in that than a complex set of abstract principles.

It's not meant to be a rational A-> B progression but rather a way to help people to suspend their disbelief.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am feeling a little sentimental. I missed some of the interactions and, more importantly, some of the interactees. Very happy to find some still here.

Good to see you again. I was wondering where you had disappeared off to.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Hello Eudaimonist. And Received. And quatona. It has been a while. I am very happy to see three friends still here.

Hello David - now, that´s a surprise!

I believe that that was what I was doing when I was a Christian. I spoke to Jesus and he replied in words and feelings. But I was the one who had put the Jesus handle on a part of myself.

To me, the question is: What difference does it make? (I´m not saying it doesn´t make a difference)

 

[Received]

It's not a problem so much a good rhetorical device.

If you can get someone to imagine having a relationship with a personal deity it is much easier for them to believe in that than a complex set of abstract principles.

It's not meant to be a rational A-> B progression but rather a way to help people to suspend their disbelief.

It's definitely good rhetoric, but I think it's interesting in that most people who say such phrases don't intend it to be rhetoric. They really think something is there even if they don't know what it is. I don't really know how to capture that psychologically, other than comparing them to youngsters who want to join a cool group of kids but have no idea what these kids are about so they use empty phrases.

 

[Received]

I would agree.

Whenever you have outside sources trying to define what you should be connecting to from a spirtual perspective, you will run into the round peg square hole problem. We are all psychologically unique and discovering without undue pressure is most advantageous. You have the christian concept of God, which one can reconcile and connect with or they cant and to me, that would on each person's psychological makeup.

That's an interesting idea. I don't know if it reduces to an individual's psychology, but we definitely seem to have some type of hard wiring for religion (not necessarily spirituality per se), and I think the real distinctions come with culture, which molds us in such a way where we prefer certain conceptions of God, which are usually compatible with other cultural worldviews or ontologies. So in the West we believe in a deity who intervenes, who is personal, who supports free will, and the reflection of which culturally is individualism; whereas in the East we believe in a deity who isn't really personal, who doesn't intervene, who is part of the universe, the reflection of which culturally is collectivism.

 

[Received]

I am going to have to ease back gently into it, I think. Get some out of practice brain cells working again.

Start here.

 

[variant]

It's definitely good rhetoric, but I think it's interesting in that most people who say such phrases don't intend it to be rhetoric. They really think something is there even if they don't know what it is. I don't really know how to capture that psychologically, other than comparing them to youngsters who want to join a cool group of kids but have no idea what these kids are about so they use empty phrases.

They aren't rational but I don't really think they are "empty" per say. I believe it says a lot about the person. I think they tie into the persons psyche and are sort of trained responses to doubt. It indicates a persons lack of self awareness to use them.

But I also think the mind works often by linking ideas in a network of images, feelings, experiences and such together such that a person can associate them together.

Having a personal relationship with God means to a person to imagine God as a real person that they have interactions with and that helps people suspend their doubt by accessing the same parts of their brain that they use when dealing with real people.

The people who say such things are definitely talking about the same kind of mindset so it helps as a short hand with their peers and you get the sort of religious group think that often pervades such groups.

But if you ask me an atheist if I have such a mindset, the answer is definitely no. I am quite cynical and analytical about such statements, so the sort of thing religious people are talking about simply doesn't happen with atheists.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

How, then, does God relate to human beings in a way that transcends belief?

In my book, God's interaction with humans is almost entirely qualitative. Everyone's personal information (material and immaterial info) is fragmented qualitatively. The false is always at war with the true. God interacts with us in immaterial realm as pure truth, which means He interacts very faintly with human truthiness (a Colbert term, I think), whether religious or not. This is a merciful thing, the Bible's full of language equating the purity of God's essence (Truth) as a "fire" which destroys falsity (kindling). God's a roaring fire of pure truth, which is why He interacts from a distance for now.

The relationship between any human (religious or not) and God boils down to interactions between these contraries, true and false imo. All humans are regenerated (false elements destroyed and reborn true, hence death and resurrection, the greatest metaphor of Christianity. In time all enmity against God (falseness) will be melted off (refined as through fire, 1Cor 3:5-11 and lotsaother verses from practically the entire OT) at which time hatred for God and all others (also hatred of the ideas of others) will be replaced with the harmony, communion, coherent interfacing, love, etc. common to the true.

The Bible promises this to all people by Jesus' atonement, but few see it because folks disdain the communication type God choose to reveal it in (allegory). Those of us who hate more will burn more, but the burning itself is ultimately salvation as it kills the false and God replaces this with true offspring. Cycle of [spiritual] life and all.

Unfortunately, most of my fellow Christians can't abide the fact that God treats all alike because the literal leads naturally to an elitist (and literal) rendering of a spiritual (allegorical) book.