Originally posted by Badwater
Sand in the eyes of the blind does not impair vision.

Pat yourself in the back some more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I suspect that 'believe in' would be the wrong phrase. Many people have redefined 'God' to be some sort of description of the universe, but unless certain assertions are made about how the universe is or works, no belief is required. I believe Einstein was one of those atheists who in refusing to part with the word 'God' only served to cause confusion ...[text shortened]... tempt to avoid declaring himself atheist, which brings with it significant discrimination.

True. 'Believe' is the wrong word. When Klaas Hendrikse says that "...God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience." , he isn't saying that he 'believes' in human experience, but that he is looking at human experience in a very different way. It is to treat the interactions between humans as a potential for 'holiness', which, I think, is at the heart of what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 25:31-46.

Originally posted by Palynka
Language being what it is, people can define words to mean whatever they want. Just that communication might be impaired. In this case, defining God in non-theistic terms will only serve to confuse others. Like I said, sand in people's eyes.

Confuse others? Or help them reach a new and perhaps richer understanding?

Originally posted by rwingett
Confuse others? Or help them reach a new and perhaps richer understanding?

Confuse others. For the reasons I stated. Hope this helps.

Eastern religions manage to find holiness without God concepts. Why are you so fixed on using the word "God"?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I found this little gem on the BBC website -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362

For those 'religionists' who claim that atheism is the new religion, you could just be right.

It is part of the mainstream Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN), and the service is conventional enough, with hymns, readings from the Bible, an ...[text shortened]... r does Klaas Hendrikse believe that God exists at all as a supernatural thing.

This only goes to show, you can claim the name but reject God, nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
Confuse others. For the reasons I stated. Hope this helps.

Eastern religions manage to find holiness without God concepts. Why are you so fixed on using the word "God"?

For lack of a better word that will resonate sufficiently with a western audience.

Edit: And because a transition into a different understanding of a familiar word may be more efficacious than offering a complete sundering of ties to it.

Originally posted by rwingett
For lack of a better word that will resonate sufficiently with a western audience.

Doublespeak for religion, you mean?

Originally posted by Palynka
Doublespeak for religion, you mean?

According to you.

Originally posted by rwingett
According to you.

Well, you already admitted as such. The point is ability to resonate, rather than clarity.

Originally posted by Palynka
Well, you already admitted as such. The point is ability to resonate, rather than clarity.

Religion is in the business of competing for adherents. People aren't going to adopt one that doesn't resonate with them. Stripping away obsolescent theistic notions may impede the clarity of simple word definitions, but I hardly think that is a primary concern.

Originally posted by rwingett
Religion is in the business of competing for adherents. People aren't going to adopt one that doesn't resonate with them. Stripping away obsolescent theistic notions may impede the clarity of simple word definitions, but I hardly think that is a primary concern.

Amusing that you see conversion as the primary concern (of nominal adherents, because apparently you don't trust them to handle the unfiltered "truth" ), rather than clarity of religious views.

The old-school leftism is strong with this one.

Originally posted by Palynka
Amusing that you see conversion as the primary concern (of nominal adherents, because apparently you don't trust them to handle the unfiltered "truth" ), rather than clarity of religious views.

The old-school leftism is strong with this one.

As long as they do not claim to be factually true, I have no interest in the 'truth' of religious views. I am concerned solely with their utility. A religion that contradicts scientific knowledge has increasingly less and less utility. One that adapts itself to new scientific knowledge may maintain great utility indefinitely. By giving the bible a metaphorical interpretation, Mr. Hendrikse avoids going head-to-head against scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by rwingett
As long as they do not claim to be factually true, I have no interest in the 'truth' of religious views. I am concerned solely with their utility. A religion that contradicts scientific knowledge has increasingly less and less utility. One that adapts itself to new scientific knowledge may maintain great utility indefinitely. By giving the bible a metaphorical interpretation, Mr. Hendrikse avoids going head-to-head against scientific knowledge.

That the truth was of no concern to you was obvious. I just wanted you to spell it out.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Palynka
Confuse others. For the reasons I stated. Hope this helps.

Eastern religions manage to find holiness without God concepts. Why are you so fixed on using the word "God"?

Just after WWI, anthropologist Ruth Benedict controversially wrote in 'The Chrysanthemum and the Sword' that Japan, at least, is a shame-based culture in contrast to the West's guilt-based Christian culture. Some people think this difference was overstated then, and is more so now, but the concept is that a shame-based culture relies on emotions related to the esteem with which people are held by their fellows, whereas the guilt-based culture relies on pangs of conscience before a supreme moral being -- God. It makes sense that a culture that looks to social approval and "face" as a moral motivator has less need for belief in God. We hear this all the time from some Christians, who wonder why anyone would be moral without God. I guess those Christians wouldn't be, and there is a deep knowledge of that fact in our society.

Originally posted by JS357
Just after WWI, anthropologist Ruth Benedict controversially wrote in 'The Chrysanthemum and the Sword' that Japan, at least, is a shame-based culture in contrast to the West's guilt-based Christian culture. Some people think this difference was overstated then, and is more so now, but the concept is that a shame-based culture relies on emotions related to the ...[text shortened]... s those Christians wouldn't be, and there is a deep knowledge of that fact in our society.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure if I understand where you want to go with this, though. We're talking about people who have rejected the notion of a supreme moral being, still calling something "God".