Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Like everyone else, I have no idea whether a god exists or even what it could be if it did. I'm absolutely sure though, that if it does exist, it's got nothing to do with anything any of our religions say about it. How can an imaginary deity be defined by consensus?

First we have to decide if there ever could be a common imagination.Genesis 11:1-9 describes such a common imagination.We likely would never agree on the characteristics. Our imaginations are scattered and varied. Do you imagine the possibility of a Higher Intelligence, however? Even if it were simply Aliens?

That's easy, no. Because...We likely would never agree on the characteristics. Our imaginations are scattered and varied. As evidence I offer every god that's ever been created by mnkind. No, I don't imagine that. If I *did* want that, I'd read science fiction.

The Tower of Babel story doesn't describe a "common imagination" about God. It's about building an impressive tower to make a name for themselves:

quote:

---

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

---

Essentially they all agreed. They all had a common plan. For some reason, being in unity without including God in the plan (or imagination) was a no-no. You and I argue about this trait today. People can choose to ignore God individually...that's between them and reality. Problems arise when they do so collectively. That's why there is a fight to preserve freedom of religion collectively vs freedom from religion collectively.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Too arrogant. You have a belief and opinion just as I do. You cannot make such a statement and have it taken seriously. You do not know that belief is science fiction. Granted you have a sound argument otherwise...until you overextend your intelligence and declare it settled.

You asked me a question, I answered it. Why is it arrogant? It seems utterly impossible for those that believe to understand the position of those that don't. Afetr all this time, all these posts you continue to make the same mistakes. How can this be, you're not stupid?What do you think my 'belief' is? Maybe you can tell me. PLEASE don't say that my belief is not to believe or that I believe in science or some such. Try to get to grip with an absence of belief. Apparently not by a believer anyway. Well that's certainly true. But you asked if I imagined Higher Intelligence as aliens. I think you misunderstood my reply - I don't feel the need to imagine higher intelligence period. If I did I'd look to sciencefiction. All these straw men! It's because you can't put yourself into an atheist's head.There is nothing settled about whether there's a god or not. There never can be unless he suddenly appears in all his glory etc etc. I simply claim that there is not a scrap of evidence for one and that all the ones we know of are quite obviously human inventions.I then take one step more and say that I therefore do not believe that there is a god. Just the same as Percy but he goes the other way at the last step. Neither of us can defend the last step.

You've got that right. I could never be so confident about what I don't believe. You can, of course, because you believe in logic and evidence. Plus you feel no discomfort over the idea that there is no God. (Absence of Belief) I can't get that in my head. Totally odd and bizarre to me. It does sound arrogant. How could one be so comfortable with humans being the highest intelligence known?

It really is very simple. Consider how you view Zeus or Vishnu etc and that’s simply how we view your god.It’s not that hard to grasp surely...

That is apparent, but that's not the point I'm trying to make to you.I'm asking you to accept what I'm saying as true to me - and to other non-believers - and stop trying to interpret me - and others -based on your own beliefs. When you do that, you get it all wrong. But it's (not) in your head about Allah, Vishnu and fairies. That's *exactly* what it's like. It's an absense, it's not even *in* your head at all. It's a non-thing, not a concern, not on any list, just not friggin' there.It's not a hole filled with something else. It's not a belief in science, rationality or atheism (sic). It's a nothing, a nonentity a nonproblem, it's not a thing in my conciousness.That's obviously hard for you to get because this god thing seems uppermost in yours, but take it from me, it's not in mine and it seems to make an enormous difference to how you see everything and everybody. You appear to interpret everything through the lens of belief. If you carry on doing that, you'll never understand those that don't believe.

But you said in Message 1154, "Or do we all have to first arrive at a consensus of what such a Deity would be defined as?" Genesis 11 doesn't say there was a consensus about God. There was a consensus about a city and a tower. It doesn't say that the people were thinking about God at all. The problem only arose because God was afraid of the people being united.

I interpret it differently. God by definition could never be afraid of anything except in the sense of fearing for His "creations" safety and well-being. He likely foreknew that if humans attempted to exclude Him from their conscious plan and self-identified meaning, they would eventually perish.My preassumption is why I continually argue the necessity of acknowledging God rather than attempting to live life dismissing it all as myth and an ancient folklore.Perhaps, however, it is I who needs to at least understand if not accept the lens through how unbelievers view it all.

Yours is not an interpretation. It's a fiction. What you're saying is not in the story. In the story He was afraid - so your definition must be wrong. He was also afraid in the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life.

It is you who are describing a fictional God. I don't care what you literally interpret as written. The church, in general, disagrees with you. I'm going with them (and my own belief) on this one... No, but its closer to orthodox belief than your literal interpretation of the story.

All Gods are fictional. What "is written" is the character Jesus. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead but God didn't commit genocide is like believing that Long John Silver was a good cook but he wasn't really a pirate. "The church", in general, is wrong about a lot of things. And you're falling into Faith's trap of thinking that your congregation represents "the church". I'm just pointing out that you're wrong.