If you don't believe in God, then:
1. Please define God.
2. Can you define God in a way that you could accept?
2006-11-06 17:48:12 · 11 answers · asked by knowsaltaboutalt 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
My goodness! If you don't believe in something you ABSOLUTELY must have a definition of what it is that you don't believe!
If you don't believe that God exists, then does that mean that you don't believe in an all powerful being? You don't believe in love? You don't believe in God a "male" omnipotent being but you do believe God is an all loving "female"?
2006-11-06 18:07:22 · update #1
Let me help you out here! The question is about how we define things and our ability to look at various view points.
If you say "I don't believe in UFOs" you probably mean "I don't believe alien life forms have landed their spaceships here on earth." You probably would accept: "there have been objects appearing to be flying in our sky which have remained unidentified by those who viewed them." -- which would mean that in one sense you don't believe in UFOs while you do in fact believe in Unidentified flying objects!
So if you say "I don't believe in God" that means that you have accepted a definition of God which you cannot accept as a reality. And if you DO believe in "love" and now someone says, "ah, that IS my definition of God!" then are you able to say: "Oh, well, in that case, I DO believe in God!"
2006-11-06 18:31:34 · update #2
The question is not about Christianity or whether or not you believe in the Christian Bible. It is only about how you define God.
2006-11-06 18:47:45 · update #3
1. I don't believe in God the anthropomorphic being. I don't believe in God the noun.
2. I do believe in God the verb: love, kindness, mercy, compassion, goodness, wisdom.
2006-11-06 18:12:17 · answer #1 · answered by Gidgee Bubu 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry to say that there seem to be a lot of dull-witted/rude atheists out there. I'm agnostic, so I tend to get lumped together with them sometimes, but it can be embarassing.
I suppose I would define God (speaking specifically of the Christian God, not gods in general) as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient yet intangible being that Christians believe to exist and to have created the universe and everything in it. That would be the short definition, I suppose. Regarding the second question, yes, and I just did.
Come on, atheists. It's like defining dragons or unicorns for you. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't mean they can't be defined. The dictionary does it, so why can't you?
2006-11-07 02:13:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I cannot define what I believe NOT to exist!
EDIT: Okay. I do not believe in what YOU define as god. You make the definition. You propose the character. I say I'm not buying it. I believe in love, but I call it love. And I don't attribute it to a powerful being that is setting things up for me. I don't believe in a male OR female superior being, because I don't believe in ANY superior being. Actually I do, because I think some people are superior to me. But I don't call them gods. I call them geniuses, or talented, or good people. So, it's like this. There is a traditional definition of what god is supposed to be. Well, that's what I don't believe in.
2006-11-07 01:50:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Here is my sort of answer to both. Kind of. My belief system is very, very strange to most.
I think there's something out there. We can recognize it, but we can't comprehend it. We can maybe understand bits of it. Everyone sees a bit of it and follows that bit they can see, whether they call it God, a lot of gods, energy, spirits, the world soul, the collective unconscious, or simply the unknown. But for anyone to say they know the entirety of it, and only one way is correct, is preposterous and arrogant. If there was only one correct way to be seen, that would be the same part everyone sees.
2006-11-07 02:02:49 · answer #4 · answered by angk 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The God as has been described (A) personally interacts with followers; (B) engages in providing benefits and miracles for those who ask for them; (C) has created the universe; (D) judges people's actions; (E) contravenes the laws of nature to meet his whim; (F) has a personality that is similar to human; (G) that uses language to communicate.
And those aspects describe the God that I do not believe in.
Since any other description of God renders him irrelevant, there's no reason to accept God. Simply, an irrelevant God may as well not exist.
2006-11-07 01:54:03 · answer #5 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. God is Love. God is life, slow the wrath, merciful, kind, a loving Father, patient, caring, willing to help, and sacrificed His son to suffer and die for an ungrateful people who are called humans. But one day every knee shall bow before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
2006-11-07 01:59:06 · answer #6 · answered by Godb4me 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1 a mythical monster who barbecues babies
2 get rid of the doctrine of original sin, the part where it says that children born out of wedlock will be denied heaven until their seventh generation, all the sexism, racism, and homophobia--hell, ditch the whole book
2006-11-07 01:56:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1 - the god most religious "types" follow
2- yes, I have as I believe in that god.
2006-11-07 01:51:28 · answer #8 · answered by spirenteh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How does someone define something, they don't believe exists?
2006-11-07 01:58:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
ihave answer but not for u
because
i i believe in God
2006-11-07 01:53:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋