An interesting idea concerning the identity of God

[FluffyMcDeath]

 

[cecilia]

ah, yes...saw this on an atheist FB group.
it's much too rational for most religious kooks, I'm sorry to say

 

[Robert]

Interesting video. I can't really argue with a word of that.

 

[metalman]

Anthony seems to be obsessed with God.

Anthony talks about God more than most devout Christians. Is Anthony's hostility with God due to anger and resentment of his father? Is Anthony repressing a subconscious desire to worship? Did Anthony reject Theresa in his crazed antisocial rant of rejection because he is coping with fears of being abandoned by his mother? Anthony does a lot of psychological projection of his own bias onto Theresa, is this because he is being psychologically dominated by his mother and can not have an intimate relationship with a female? Is Anthony using his evangelical atheism as a psychological defense against fears of social rejection?

Anthony appears to be in need of years of intense psycho therapy to help him deal with his inner psychological conflicts, or he can just try connecting with God directly.
.

 

[Argo]

Why are the atheists even acknowledging a God they deny exists? I don't understand why they must attack and make fun of those that do believe in God (Christians) . Never seen them attack Jews.... or Muslims.

 

[Robert]

Anthony seems to be obsessed with God.

We live in a society obsessed with God.

Is Anthony's hostility with God due to...

Hostility? In that video?

Strange, I didn't see any hostility towards God at all.
In fact, the video actually goes someway to pre-emptively refuting that claim.

How can one be hostile to something one does not accept even exists?

I suppose, you could argue that if the any approximation of the Christian God I was taught about really did exist, then I may well be hostile towards it, because the being presented to me is a twisted, vengeful, murderous c*nt.
I'm generally averse to twisted, vengeful, murderous c*nts, (for example, our former leader, Tony Blair) and outright hostility wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

On the bright side, the Christian God as presented to me is a logical impossibility so I can't be averse to Him, let alone hostile.

Turning that around, your hostility to Anthony. What is it due to? Your own insecurity? ;-)

-EDIT-
And ingesting halluconigens as a way of connecting with God?
Whatever floats your ark, I suppose.
-

 

[Robert]

Why are the atheists even acknowledging a God they deny exists?

You honestly have to ask that? Really?

Have a think about your question for a moment.

(Oh, and by the way, it's not so much denying any God exists, it's more refusing to accept what appears to be made up fantasy without a shred of evidence. Much the same way you - hopefully- refuse to accept the idea that there are Unicorns, Dragons or Faeries running around until someone proves it.)

I don't understand why they must attack and make fun of those that do believe in God (Christians) . Never seen them attack Jews.... or Muslims.

Where in that video are these attacks?

 

[Karlos]

Never seen them attack Jews.... or Muslims.

Inter-religious theological differences aside, an attack on the "Christian God" is also an attack on the Jewish and Muslim God too. Jews may not recognise Jesus as the Messiah and Muslims may not recognise Jesus as the Son of God or in any way sharing in God's divinity, but they all profess to believe in the same God.

How can one be hostile to something one does not accept even exists?

Actually, I think it's perfectly possible to be hostile towards something you do not accept exists. A typical diatribe I've encountered goes along the lines of "Well, there is no God, but if there was, then he's a nasty evil piece of work because he lets terrible things happen when he could prevent them." The sentiment is perfectly clear. One can actually rid themselves of the notion that God exists, but still hate the very idea of God, which under the circumstances is about as tantamount to the same thing as you can reasonably get. More often though, that antipathy is redirected towards the beliefs and practises of those that do believe or even to the people themselves.

I moderate a Muslim forum (that's actually more aimed at political awareness amongst Muslims but does or rather did, though it's kind of moribund now) tend to attract atheists, occasionally former Muslims and have had quite a few debates with them. In my personal experience, a lot of atheists (present company excluded) assume the moral and intellectual high ground as if it's their natural birthright and feel perfectly content in assuming you must be a total retard for thinking otherwise. Consequently they soon become as hostile as any religious zealot when challenged on their "own turf".

 

[Robert]

Actually, I think it's perfectly possible to be hostile towards something you do not accept exists. A typical diatribe I've encountered goes along the lines of "Well, there is no God, but if there was, then he's a nasty evil piece of work...

That's more or less the same point I made and, to a certain extent, applies to me.
I'm not hostile or even averse to the God I was taught about because I don't think it exists.
If it did exist, I would be averse to it.

I disagree with you contention that this equates to the same thing.

In my personal experience, a lot of atheists (present company excluded) assume the moral and intellectual high ground as if it's their natural birthright and feel perfectly content in assuming you must be a total retard for thinking otherwise.

That may well be the case but you can also apply this to any religious segment of society.

In short, there are aresholes in many shapes, sizes, beliefs and lack thereof. ;-)

 

[Karlos]

That may well be the case but you can also apply this to any religious segment of society.

In short, there are aresholes in many shapes, sizes, beliefs and lack thereof. ;-)

Precisely.

 

[redrumloa]

Perfect example why I consider myself agnostic and not atheist. Atheism itself is a religion. Atheist always feel they must justify their existence, even when other people really don't give a shit. Atheists feel they must form groups and evangelize their mission. Even this video mentions atheism billboards

 

[Dammy]

I'll be US centric here for this post: I still say this is an attempt to destroy the basis of the US Constitution. I renounced Christianity decades ago, closest think I would be considered is somewhere between a unitarian (notice the lower case "u" not to be confused with Unitarians [upper case "u"]) and a Pagan so I have no real ax to grind as far as Christianity goes. I think these hard core atheist are attempting to undermined and destroy the basis of the US Constitution by removing "God" and more specifically, "Creator." If you look at the DoI, it clearly states

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, tht they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

If the Atheist (and their political agenda) are successful in deleting "God" or "Creator" out of the US government, that means the very basis of the US Constitution is destroyed. If there is no, "Creator" that means those rights are now granted by US government. If the US government has granted those unalienable rights, that means they can "change" or "delete" or "define" those rights, legally. The thought of that happen will create a shiver down a conservative's back, does give a progressive a shiver in the pants with pleasure?

 

[Robert]

Perfect example why I consider myself agnostic and not atheist.

A reason for you being agnostic rather than atheist would be that you believe there is some kind of God but you don't know what it is.

If you lack belief in any Gods, then you are atheist whether you like it or not, I'm afraid.

-EDIT-
Fluffy can explain this a lot better than I do.

Atheism itself is a religion.

No.
It isn't.
It is a lack of belief in any Gods.

 

[Robert]

I'll be US centric here for this post: I still say this is an attempt to destroy the basis of the US Constitution.
-
I think these hard core atheist are attempting to undermined and destroy the basis of the US Constitution by removing "God"....

I was under the impression that God wasn't cited in the US constitution?
Not being American, I may have imagined this.

 

[Karlos]

No.
It isn't.
It is a lack of belief in any Gods.

I don't concur...

Whenever one deals with any subject for which there is no conclusive proof either way, you have to make an assessment. Your opinion is thus your belief on the subject, since in the absence of conclusive proof you can't have absolute certainty.

Unless a theist can provide conclusive proof for the existence of God or an atheist provide conclusive proof for the non-existence thereof (thus ending the old argument), then each is simply choosing to believe one interpretation or the other.

 

[cecilia]

I was under the impression that God wasn't cited in the US constitution?
Not being American, I may have imagined this.

trust me, as someone (and I often feel as if I'm the only one) who has read the constitution, it was written Specifically to not say anything about 'god'.

That's because the writers of said document understood the simple fact that the Only way to have complete religious freedom is to have the government completely out of the discussion. idiots like bachmann and perry to name but two seem to completely miss that point.

I have no problem walking around an Italian neighborhood and looking at the various statues of Mary, Joseph and whoever on their lawns. It's THEIR private property. they can do as they like with it. No State, local or federal government can tell someone where they can go to church, temple, synagogue, or do nothing on Saturday/Sunday.

When crazy religious freaks insist they have the 10 commandments on court house property - government property, they forget that that is MY property as a voter. I don't want some ridiculous religious nonsense on MY property. The way to deal with that is stated in the Constitution: nothing related to religion is involved with government. period, the end.

It annoys me when 'god' is mentioned in the pledge of allegiance, but I deal with that by simply NOT saying that part whenever the moment comes up. If I was called to jury duty I would NOT swear on a bible, I would "Affirm". (do a search, it's out there. It's legal).

I don't care if people pray because it's their choice, just like it's my choice not to. I'm really quite relaxed about all that UNTIL some wacko tries to make a law that forces his dopey ideas down my throat. THEN I get pissed off.

religion is private. religion is like one's underwear. it's in really poor taste to go around pulling your pants down in public and showing your underwear. or telling me I have to get your brand of underwear. I mean, mind your own damn business, buddy.
I don't mind talking about underwear in a theoretical sense, I just don't want to have your undies in my face.

eeewwwww, yuk

 

[Robert]

Whenever one deals with any subject for which there is no conclusive proof either way, you have to make an assessment. Your opinion is thus your belief on the subject, since in the absence of conclusive proof you can't have absolute certainty.

Unless a theist can provide conclusive proof for the existence of God or an atheist provide conclusive proof for the non-existence thereof (thus ending the old argument), then each is simply choosing to believe one interpretation or the other.

I don't concur either.

I'm not sure I follow you here but here goes....

If you are using this logic to claim atheism is a religion, it follows that your lack of belief in faeries at the bottom of the garden, Loch Ness monsters, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Dragons, Unicorns, tea pots orbiting Uranus or Santa Clause (or anything else you refuse to accept on lack of evidence) would each then also constitute religions of their own.

If you are not claiming that, you've completely lost me.

 

[cecilia]

and, btw, "God" is not necessarily a "Creator" as stated in the Constitution. It just means when we all were BORN we just naturally have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I guess you could say it's in our DNA.

to be sure many, but not all the Founding Fathers were deists or had some notion of a 'god'. But they understood this to be a private belief where the government had no say. Their point was to say that No government had the right to overstep it's authority concerning these natural rights.

It's NOT atheists who are bent on corrupting the Constitution - it's the wacko religious right who need to figure a way to get more people into the pews and money in their collection plates. Atheists are not running a scam business. They simply wish to be left in peace.

 

[Karlos]

I don't concur either.

I'm not sure I follow you here but here goes....

If you are using this logic to claim atheism is a religion, it follows that your lack of belief in faeries at the bottom of the garden, Loch Ness monsters, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Dragons, Unicorns, tea pots orbiting Uranus or Santa Clause (or anything else you refuse to accept on lack of evidence) would each then also constitute religions of their own.

If you are not claiming that, you've completely lost me.

I thought I was being pretty clear, oh well.

To distill, you asserted that atheism was the "lack of belief of any God(s)", whereas I assert that it is the "belief in the lack of any God(s)". It might sound like semantics, but there is an important distinction in that the latter is still a belief, not the absence of a belief.

I assert this because the existence or not of God is, in all likelihood, something you can decide upon personally and never conclusively prove whichever side of the fence you are on.

Whilst I regard atheism as a belief, I didn't say it was a religion, since the latter generally tends to include an element of proselytism but that raises an interesting question: When any belief becomes evangelical, what is the difference?

There are plenty of evangelical atheists (I've met a few) that simply aren't content to leave others alone in their beliefs.

 

[metalman]

And ingesting halluconigens as a way of connecting with God?-

Is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit to reach God?!?

Scientist have found that people who pray 1 to 2 hours have trained their brains to highten frontal lobe activity resulting in increased powers of concentration and supprisingly the parietal lobes go dark.

Scientists suspect that a key to a mystical experience is the serotonin system. The neurotransmitter serotonin affects the parts of the brain that relate to emotions and perceptions. Chemically, peyote and other psychedelics look a lot like serotonin, and they activate the same receptor. Cave drawings that are tens of thousands of years old feature patterns which correspond to the visual effects produced by psychedelic drugs. So has evolution wired people to be able to connect with the divine and is having the right brain chemistry required for an encounter?

Peyotism is the most widely practiced religion by Native Americans. It is legal for Native Americans to ingest peyote in the United States, as long as it is part of their bona fide religious ceremonies.

Peyote is a small flowering spineless pineapple looking cactus that grows only along the Rio Grand valley. The active ingredient in Peyote is mescaline. Native Americans using peyote report communicating with god, spirits, and ancestors. A general feeling of well being is reported as well as a feeling of connection to and compassion for others. Senses are heightened and users report things like colors looking more vibrant and music having more depth. On higher doses mixing of the senses is also common, such as seeing sounds and smelling colors. No negative long term effects of Peyote use have been discovered, but positive effects have been documented such as a higher level of psychological well being and a lower tendency to develop depression.

So are atheist God-blind just like some people are color blind?