Jump to content

Click to shop at FS Books
- - - - -

Knowing There's No God Vs. Believing There's No God

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#51 Perfection of Disorder

Perfection of Disorder

    Paradoxically Spontaneous

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationIn the midst of knowing the unknowable

Posted November 24 2016 - 09:18 AM

I don't know why anyone wants me to say that there isn't a god.
What I know is that no one knows anything about it,
and that the same things are important, whether there is or are, any or not:
that the dominance of aggressveness is still tyranny
and consideration is still what morality is.
(also that a universally wonderful strangeness is a very real thing,
that cannot be known, can only be experienced,
and the more we pretend to know about it,
the less often we do.)

To my mind gods are manifestations of the singular into the plural. The concept giving breath to the context. Myriad concepts give breath to the context of a deity. So innumerable are they that I dare not attempt such context without deep study. I will provide a couple of examples of concepts pertaining to the Judeo-christian deiific context and others however. Insofar as I have studied there are three concepts in reference to the manifestation of Yahweh. The first would refer to the context that this deity sprang from the concept of the Egyptian god Ra after a pharaoh determined Ra to be the singular god and was later dethroned. This of course leading to his exile and the beginning of new context. The next would refer to the context of its people's need. Yahweh manifested the way it did to answer the needs of its conceptual forebears. We need law therefore we need context for the law. We need strength in these harsh times therfore we raise up the strong. We are alone therefore we need an everlasting all encompassing companion. The simple beauty of the conceptualization of deity is enough for me. Sorry rambling momentarily. The third is the context that this deity is all there is and all that is needed and the context is enough for serenity. Sadly this context is the one we seem to forget the most. It is the context of Truth, determination, Right, Wrong.....so many beautiful things. Beautiful in their sadness, their joy, their rigid frailty....

what is the problem there, is that the question itself, is a smoke screen away from what really matters.  so whether or not they are both right about anything or even everything else, they are both wrong about this.
one who does not speak, being absolutely right not to, offends everyone who believes they have a right to demand attention. 
in the real world, so many do, that it is often as dangerous to hold silence, as to risk saying the wrong thing.
i side with the right to remain silent.  unfortunately we live in a world dominated by those who call doing so autism and a disease.

I sympathize with your acceptance of right and wrong. To me the determination of Right and Wrong is only meant to be a context to the momentary Self however I certainly get where you're coming from.

If you do not speak: how can we know what it is you do know?

Honestly brother you only need know what you determine to know. If our understanding is mutually filled by the context words provide so be it. Knowing is momentary unknowing is limitless.
DISCLAIMER......Please hold on......my understanding is my own and yours is yours. We have already agreed to disagree and disagreed to agree. Your personal ideology is no more good or bad than mine, etc.......... Love,Hate,War & Peace.........END DISCLAIMER

#52 Emanresu



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted December 07 2016 - 05:25 PM

Words mean whatever people agree that they mean, so I try not to focus too much on any given word or phrase (and I find myself using the word 'atheist' less and less). However I refer to myself as an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I do not claim to know that there are no gods, but I don't believe in any god I've ever heard of (and my default position any time I hear about a god I've never heard of before is to not believe in that god until someone can demonstrate why I should believe in that god). Some people get really mad about this. They say that being an atheist means you claim to know that no gods exist. I just look at it simply: If I don't believe in any gods then I am not a theist and therefor I am an atheist.


I do claim to know that specific gods or religions are bogus, but only when the religion makes a claim that is demonstrably false, or when the doctrines of a religion are logically inconsistent.

  • guerillabedlam likes this

#53 themnax


    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,871 posts
  • Locationa small green planet in a distant galaxy

Posted March 20 2017 - 04:24 PM

i see nothing to stop something completely non-physical, that leaves no physical trace, from having an objective and independent existence.


what i don't find compelling, is the 'need' for any such thing, to be infallible, at war with anything, or have the slightest desire to be feared.


religions aren't really about gods, any more then they're about sciences or anything more real, than how people treat each other.


it is how people treat each other that is the one thing they really are about.  gods may also exist, or not if they choose not to.


people just like to conflate these different things to imagine they know things no one really does.

my nation is the imagination

this is the dawning of the age of zootopia

and thank god i'm not quite human


Click to shop at Zamnesia