Gnosis of Disbelief Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Fluffy clouds? You mean like the one's in Monty Python with the feet which bounce up and down with the sun? Or were you thinking the clouds that the Snuggles Bear falls into? Yeah, I'm not sure I really get that one. Makes gawd sound like a steamy fart..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 As a child because ...... Well I guess if you want to worship or picture your god as a child you can..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 If there is a god, I envision it as the ultimate culmination of Everything, the only thing that isn't a holon (a whole/part like an atom) but just a whole. Hence, I'm an agnostic panendeist (an agnostic with an idea). Oh, and don't forget to throw in some of process theory's ground of being, thereby making god the culmination and the basis. Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Meadows Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I used to see God sometimes as a Father, sometimes as a Mother and sometimes as child with me being closely identified with the child. No I dont think Im God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 No I dont think Im God Why not? Since we create God in our own image, we are God. I am God, you are God, we are God. So if 3 persons make a trinity, what do 7,000,000,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Meadows Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 No I dont think Im God Why not? Because I am a finite creature and God is not. Since we create God in our own image, I agree that people project onto God what they would like to believe, e.g massacre of women and children, but I have not yet let go that there is a God and the fundemental relationships we have on earth, mother, father, son/daughter do indeed reflect some part of Gods nature. Though I have fallen out with xtianity I still find this an attractive thought but not something I would try and push on anyone else as being gospel truth. It tends to increase my happiness when I am able think deeply of it. we are God. Maybe its a problem of semantics, I mean one thing you mean another. I am God, you are God, we are God. ditto So if 3 persons make a trinity, what do 7,000,000,000? Paganism?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 When I was a christian, I never really had a strong visual component. I guess the closest I could get is like a voice coming down out of the sky. Nowadays... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I agree that people project onto God what they would like to believe, e.g massacre of women and children, but I have not yet let go that there is a God and the fundemental relationships we have on earth, mother, father, son/daughter do indeed reflect some part of Gods nature. You are right that we are saying the same thing just with a different language. I personally found it better for myself to not project these attributes to some external thing, but rather to recognize these are our qualities that we embrace as the highest ideals - those that bring the most benefit to ourselves, others, and our environment. It puts the responsibility more on us. It's too messy for me to make those something that belongs to some external whatever. Too much association with theologies. But I certainly respect those who can do it, who don't let it become a source of division and exclusivity. Those are negatives and not in the interest of better the human experience of life. In otherwords, anti-spritual. I would be best described (at least at this moment in time) as a Secular Humanist, although I don't like that term too much. I prefer Materialistic Aesthetic Atheist, but that's hard to wrap ones mind around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachelness Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyReligion Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 When I was little I used to think my pastor was God. He had a cool "godlike" look about him. His skin was the color of ebony, and his totally white hair was a great contrast. As I grew up I always thought God looked like Chick Tract God... But now I think of God as a divine force, and possibly resembles energy or mother Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I've never put a face or a body structure on God, but the angels are always naked, hot young men with wings and long hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Hmmm...I suppose that back when I did believe in "god", I vacillated between the "Father Time"/bearded old man model and the "Bright Light" model. But today, at the height of my atheism and scornful derision, when I'm forced to think of "god" I think of this... Courtesy of South Park! (I'm surprised no one has used this before. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 How did you envision God then? How about now? I pictured him more as the nebula god then - even as a believer I couldn't see him as a person of any kind. Now I picture him as a paranoid, insecure, hateful bronze-age ignoramus, since those are the kind of people who made him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I used to see God sometimes as a Father, sometimes as a Mother and sometimes as child with me being closely identified with the child. No I dont think Im God Oh, we are God for sure. We have the greatest minds in this world (at least on this planet so far). We can created, design, understand (all of it in limited ways, but still). All the attributes we apply to God, we have to certain degree. God is nothing more than the "perfect circle". A concept of the "perfect" representation of what we are. We can love, so God represents the perfect and complete love. We can trust, and God represent the perfect and complete trust. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Meadows Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I used to see God sometimes as a Father, sometimes as a Mother and sometimes as child with me being closely identified with the child. No I dont think Im God Oh, we are God for sure. Not in the conventional sense (at least from xtian perspective) of the thre "O's" - your are using a different definition that rules out such a being? We have the greatest minds in this world (at least on this planet so far). We can created, design, understand (all of it in limited ways, but still). They key word is "limited" and my take is that this will alway's be the same since it takes something greater than self to fully comprehend and take in self. Does this make sense? All the attributes we apply to God, we have to certain degree. To a pure atheist this is because we project and externalise these qualities onto a thing called god which is the idealisation of the human mind, a perfect abstraction. I think it's because the author of creation has written into the very fabric of our being concepts such as parenthood. In some ways they are a reflection of God's own very nature - its how we primarily experience the nature of God in everyday life. God is nothing more than the "perfect circle". A concept of the "perfect" representation of what we are. ditto We can love, so God represents the perfect and complete love. yes but for me it suggests more a real being than a construction of the mind. That god is love seems to be the absolute foundation to the universe and answers the basic questions of existence that science cannot answer because it is a matter of metaphysics. We can trust, and God represent the perfect and complete trust. but certainly not the bible god who is completely untrustworthy, deceitful, breaks promises and is the author of all the suffering in this world. This does not get better in the NT, but rather, worse because of the doctrine of hell. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I checked the nebula look because when I first started thinking about God at age 4 or 5 I imagined him looking like a big cloud man with indistinct facial features looming into the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparrow Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 If God exists, and I very much doubt it, then I suspect he / she / it could be envisioned as a big-fat wrinkly old pig that is happily gorging itself on human misery and suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 This Picture hung in the hall of the house I grew up in. I saw it almost every day until I joined the army. So, this is how God looked to me. Now if God and Jesus existed, this is how I think they would look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 It's hard to envision something that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 It's hard to envision something that doesn't exist. More like it's difficult to envision something that you don't think exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. XC Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 It is hard to envision something that has no physical form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 It is hard to envision something that has no physical form. Well, according to many god does take physical form. However, you're right, if one doesn't think god takes physical form, it is very hard to envision god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 It's hard to envision something that doesn't exist. More like it's difficult to envision something that you don't think exists. Just a small dose of common sense rules out most of the gods quite easily just by their impossible definitions and descriptions alone. As an atheist I shouldn't have to disprove God. But on the other hand, if pressed to prove the non-existence of a God. Just give me the definition for a particular deity and you can be sure it will define itself out of existence without to much difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Just a small dose of common sense rules out most of the gods quite easily just by their impossible definitions and descriptions alone. As an atheist I shouldn't have to disprove God. But on the other hand, if pressed to prove the non-existence of a God. Just give me the definition for a particular deity and you can be sure it will define itself out of existence without to much difficulty. Not really. Just a shred of thought and reason, coupled with observation gives one logical explanations for divinity. Your insistence on "impossible definitions" is irrelevant. Let me ask you a question. If one sees smoke, can one reasonably assume that there is fire? If so, then we do know that one does not need to fully sense something to recognize its existence. OK, let me try this, just for fun. Hypothetically, I define god as the pen on my desk. I pray to it, and sometimes it answers my prayers and sometimes it does not. The pen is there, that much is undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Not really. Just a shred of thought and reason, coupled with observation gives one logical explanations for divinity. Your insistence on "impossible definitions" is irrelevant. Define the God you believe in, then we can go from there to see if it's impossible attributes are irrelevant. After you define your God, show me the proof for it's existence. I am always open that I could be wrong about my non-belief in the gods. Let me ask you a question. If one sees smoke, can one reasonably assume that there is fire? If so, then we do know that one does not need to fully sense something to recognize its existence. I think we all have a pretty good idea and knowledge where smoke comes from. It comes from the ability we have to perceive the natural world around us with our natural senses. A God cannot be perceived that way. A God is based on a belief only. it is not part of reality. Fire and smoke is. OK, let me try this, just for fun. Hypothetically, I define god as the pen on my desk. I pray to it, and sometimes it answers my prayers and sometimes it does not. The pen is there, that much is undeniable. Hmm, interesting. Does that mean I can look at my stove in my kitchen as a God too? yea right! I think not partner. I think you better come up with some more effective analogies because the ones you have used so far really suck as in big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts