"Well, I don't believe in that god either"

[struggle4progress]

... For seven years I was College Chaplain and Worcester College, Oxford. Each year I used to see the first year undergraduates individually for a few minutes ,,, Most were happy to meet me; but many commented, often with slight embarrassment, “You won’t be seeing much of me; you see, I don’t believe in god.” I developed stock response: “Oh, that’s interesting; which god is it you don’t believe in?” This used to surprise them; they mostly regarded the word “God” as a univocal, always meaning the same thing. So they would stumble out a few phrases about the god they said they did not believe in: a being who lived up the in the sky, looking down disapprovingly at the world, occasionally “intervening” to do miracles, sending bad people to hell while allowing good people to share his heaven. Again, I had a stock response for this very common statement of “spy-in-the-sky” theology: “Well, I’m not surprised you don’t believe in that god. I don’t believe in that god either.” At this point the undergraduate would look startled ... What most people mean by “god” in late-modern western culture simply is not the mainstream Christian meaning ...
JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD
(Originally published in Ex Auditu 1998, 14, 42–56
N. THOMAS WRIGHT

... So imagine: Fry is sitting opposite God and telling him that he is a bastard because he invented cancer and insects that burrow into children’s eyes ... What greater example of speaking truth to power could there be than this? And for absolutely no reward. For if Fry is right about God being an omnipotent bastard, then he could hardly expect to be rewarded for his honest observations. He tells the truth then burns in eternity ... Fry is entirely heroic in his truth telling. Too many religious people actually worship power. They imagine the source of ultimate power, give it a name (God, Allah, Yahweh) etc, and then try and cosy up to it ... Whether it be a king or a prime minister or a CEO or God: the temptation is always to suck up to power. This is why the Jesus story is, for me, the most theologically revolutionary story that there can be. Because it imagines God and power separated. God as a baby. God poor. God helpless on a cross. God with a mocking and ironic crown of thorns. In these scenes it is Caesar who has the power. And so the question posed is: which one will you follow when push comes to shove? You can follow what is right and get strung up for it. Or you can cosy up to power and do as you are told. By saying that he will stare ultimate power in the face and, without fear, call it by its real name, Fry has indicated he is on the side of the angels ...
I don’t believe in the God that Stephen Fry doesn’t believe in either
Monday 2 February 2015 10.04 EST
Giles Fraser

... In my three decades as a rabbi, any number of people have told me they don't believe in God, but more often than not, the God they don't believe in is an a old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne high in the heavens. I don't believe in that God either. The only depiction of God I've seen resembling that is on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican, an image Michelangelo surely did not intend anyone to take literally ... Religious faith is not a simple thing. The very word Israel, Yisrael, means to wrestle with God, and wrestling can be hard and painful ... I am often clearer on what I don't believe about God than what I do. I don't believe that God cares about or influences sports or weather. Although insurance policies call natural disasters "acts of God," I don't believe God decides how or when people die ...
The God I Don't Believe In
Rabbi Richard A. Block
President, Central Conference of American Rabbis
Posted: 06/10/2013 4:47 pm EDT
Updated: 08/10/2013 5:12 am EDT

... “I just can’t believe in a god who kills innocent people, and slaughterers the Canaanites, and sends prophets and preachers who condemn gay people while secretly raping little boys and stealing money. The god we read about in the Bible tells us to obey the government no matter what, and pay our taxes so our armies can go steal the oil and wealth of other countries, and imprison innocent people. I don’t believe in a god who can create humans to live forever, but then decides to create of place of pain, suffering, and torture for billions of them to live in forever. And then in light of all this, he calls himself ‘good.’ If that is god, he sounds more like the devil.” I think he was waiting for me to defend my belief in God. But I only looked at him, nodded my head in agreement, and said, “Yes, I don’t believe that god exists either” ... Also, I don’t believe that the god held forth by most of modern “Christianity” exists either. I certainly believe God exists; but not that god ...
I Don't Believe That God Exists Either
By Jeremy Myers

... He would be sitting down somewhere next to a stranger – on an airplane, say, or at a dinner party – and he would be asked the inevitable question: What do you do for a living? Ministers routinely hate this situation ... Forrest Church, like every minister, often contemplated answering with something like, ‘I’m a physical therapist’ ... But, like most of us ministers, he didn’t. He ‘fessed up to being a minister. One of those reactions that we ministers can get ... is for the stranger to tell us that they don’t believe in God, and they think all of religion is bunk ... Forrest Church was a wise and experienced minister, and had a lovely response to this sort of confrontation from a vehement unbeliever. “Tell me,” he would say, “about the God you don’t believe in. I probably don’t believe in him either” ...
“I Don’t Believe in That God, Either”
Presenter: Rev. Megan Foley
Sermon Date: Sun, 06/10/2012

[immoderate]

1. This is called 'equivocation.'

Where do they describe the god they DO believe in? And what is the virtue of that myth? That it squeaks by logical objections?

So who here can describe the god that implies no contradiction?

--imm

[struggle4progress]

9. I find it rather curious, that the act of agreeing with someone seems to produce

an attack in response:

"I don't believe in such-and-such"
"Well, in fact, neither do I"
"You're equivocating!"

The pre-packaged nature of the response is clear, from the fact that the accusation is made regularly, without any regard for the actual meaning of "equivocation" -- which actually refers to a sort of slippery attempt at deceit by changing the meaning of a word one uses while hoping nobody else involved in the discussion notices. "Equivocation" does not apply to situations where the various parties merely happen to use terms in different ways; and in a conversation

"I don't believe in such-and-such"
"Well, if you use the word that way, I would have to agree with you -- but I myself don't use the word that way"
"You're equivocating!"

the final retort seems simply boorish to me

[gcomeau]

10. To state that what they are doing is "agreeing" is disingenous.

They are not agreeing, they are claiming that Stephen's criticisms of their God are invalid, without any real justification except to declare that they don't apply while providing no explanation of exactly how they believe in a God that created everything but is somehow magically not responsible for any of the bits they can't defend... and just creatively phrasing it with agreeable sounding words.

"The pre-packaged nature of the response is clear, from the fact that the accusation is made regularly"

You are talking about the content of the OP right? Where you listed five separate people making the exact same response to Fry? Those pre-packaged responses?

[struggle4progress]

13. So far as I can tell, of the excerpts I posted, which were written

by different people from differing traditions, over a period spanning nearly two decades now, only one references Fry

How, exactly, this manages to escape your attention, I am not sure, but it seems a clear indication that you did not bother to examine any of those posts with much care: I conjecture, perhaps inaccurately, that you became so excited by the prospect of accusing everyone of being "disingenous" that you found yourself unable to postpone your response further

I suppose it is a natural enough human instinct, to regard everyone, whose views we do not understand, as being not merely muddle-headed and mistaken, but actually craven and dishonest, since history might provide many examples of that attitude. But, in fact, it may not be that unusual for people who disagree on one thing to agree on another -- and unless one is interested in interacting solely with those, whose views everywhere coincide with one's own, it could be useful to recognize that opponents on one topic might be allies on another

[gcomeau]

14. Sigh...

It was *your* argument that they were all "agreement".

It does not matter if the person formulating the criticism they were fake-agreeing with was Fry or someone else in any individual instance. It still constitutes a pre-packaged response to the criticism. And in every instance it is disingenuous to pretend they are actually agreeing at all when they are rather clearly not.


Nothing you just went on about there even touched the basic substance of my response. they were not agreeing, and pretending they were is intentionally obtuse at best.

[immoderate]

12. "Equivocation" is a good example of a word that has those multiple meanings.

There is a logical fallacy by that name which you so described. But I am using it more colloquially, as a deflection of an argument through some word game. the dictionary says:

to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge

The intent here is to deflect the validation of a claim. "We both don't believe in something, therefore..." What?

Is "Flim-flam" a more agreeable characterization?

--imm

[HassleCat]

2. Straw Man, Straw God

Please stop trying to make people appear stupid when they say they don't believe in God, or a god, or any god. You know very well the idealized, tolerant peaceful God you propose exists only in the minds of a very few people. In general, the God most people worship is judgmental, vengeful, even hateful. You are indulging in a meaningless fantasy to propose that organized religion does not define God, that each of us is free to conceive of whatever God (or god) she finds in her heart, etc. etc. The God in whom you do not believe surely exists, and He inspires His followers to lie, cheat, steal and kill in His name, then ask Him for absolution. The evidence for that God is omnipresent, and there is a far better case for the existence of "that God" than for your God.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Yep

Organized religion defines "god" because how else do they know which marks they control and can exploit to advance their agenda?

[Yorktown]

5. Straw Man, Straw God

Well said.

Anyway, it's the clerics job to tell us which god they believe in and why?

And based on what evidence.

[cbayer]

15. I'm curious as to how you think this is an attempt to make people appear stupid

for saying that don't believe in god?

I think the point is that there are as many concepts of god as their are individuals. Often non-believers will describe their concept of god in very negative terms. That particular concept doesn't bear any resemblance to the concept held by many believers.

Your concept of god is that it is judgmental, vengeful and even hateful. Your concept of god is that it inspires it's followers to lie, cheat, steal and kill in it's name.

You make the false assumption that that is the concept of god that most people worship. But really it is only your concept.

Each of us is free to conceive of whatever god one want to, whether we believe or not. What we aren't free to do is to assume that our concept is shared by everyone else.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. I would argue the opposite of what that poster argues, I would say most people, at least most...

self-professed Christians, believe in a peaceful, tolerant god full of love. This isn't the god of the Bible but rather a Disneyfied version of God/Jesus that is what is acceptable in the modern world. One who doesn't judge, doesn't send people to hell(which may not exist at all! Joy!), loves everyone, and wants us all to be happy.

To be honest, I would encourage people to go ahead and believe in these types of gods if it makes them happy, they are inoffensive gods whose followers are less likely to do damage to society. Doesn't make them any more real.

[cbayer]

24. Again, the peaceful, tolerant god full of love can be found throughout the bible.

It all depends on where you look and what descriptions you embrace. You have embraced one concept which is no more valid that the concept embraced by someone who sees their god as non-judgmental and as someone who sends no one to hell.

In fact, their concept is actually based on their beliefs, while yours is an idea of something you don't even feel is real. So who are you to judge whether their concept is valid of not.

Whatever they do, it won't make it any more real to you, but I'm not sure that's the purpose.

[Lordquinton]

25. you're right, god acts nice all throughout the bible

He also commands absolute obedience and demands you love him back or he will torture you for ever. That's called schizophrenia.

Just kidding.

That's called abuse. If one of my friends said "i met someone and he says he loves me and gives me gifts, but makes me follow weird commands and threatens to torture me if i don't love him enough" I'd run to the police.

But god? Just ignore the bad parts. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

[phil89]

26. So the God who

Committed genocide and commanded unruly children to be stoned to death (according to the bible)...also did nice stuff? That may be, but choosing to worship such a God is immoral.

[cbayer]

28. Is that your image of god? The god you don't even believe in?

And you get to decide who is and isn't moral based on the concept of god they you choose?

Judgmental much?

[phil89]

47. That's the god in the bible christians profess to believe

in. Should I not take them at their word? And yes, I do judge people if they are sick or mindless enough to worship such a god. And yes, I get to form my own opinion of people who worship such a god. One of the benefits of not being told what or how to think.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. "It all depends on where you look and what descriptions you embrace." Exactly...

people cherry pick from the Bible so they can claim to worship a god that fits with their own morality and/or ethics.

The god or gods of the Bible aren't consistent, it either suffers disassociative personality disorder, or its multiple gods or conceptions of gods written down.

The problem is, generally, that they then make a truth claim that this god somehow exists, where no evidence exists for such a claim. Doesn't matter whose god, or what interpretations of the Bible are used. So I'm not judging the concept, I'm asking for evidence that this being or beings exists.

[cbayer]

38. Of course people cheery pick.

The bible is full of contradictions and wide open for interpretation.

It should be no surprise at all that people worship the god that fits their own morality and/or ethics.

It should also be no surprise at all that people reject the god that they find to be in conflict with their own morality and/or ethics.

Both are cherry picking.

The god of the bible was described by multiple humans at various times. That is why to you it may appear to have dissociative personality disorder or represents multiple gods. Have you allen for the contention that the bible is inerrant?

If someone makes a definitive claim of existence, then I'm right there with you asking for evidence.

OTOH, if someone tells me they believe and that that belief is based on faith, no such evidence can be requested.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Not the the Bible, no, but the God of it is supposed to be eternal, unchanging, etc.

They aren't, obviously, but we are two non-believers discussing this, a believer is likely to completely disagree with our observations.

[cbayer]

41. Agree. I would like to hear the view of some believers in this regard.

My guess would be that they would have a wide diversity of opinions.

[HassleCat]

30. He Describes His Victims

Read the way he describes his conversational adversaries. He is very proud of his ability to lead them into a trap and leave them mumbling and back-peddling. This is supposed to be a brilliant philosophical exposition to stun the ignorant, who would be all those who reject the God really at work in the world because they haven't thought about it "deeply" enough. You are free to conceive of what god you want, jut as you say. If that helps you believe your kind, benevolent, peaceful god does enough good to balance out the God that really exists, more power to you.

[cbayer]

32. The OP has excerpts from five different writers..

It is interesting that you have made them into a single person.

While they are generally making a similar point, their approach to it is different in every case.

I don't read this as an attempt to stun the ignorant but to point out that some assumptions made about what others believe are not always accurate.

Sometimes it is better to ask people what their concept is before attacking what you think their concept might be, because you could be dead wrong.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. Let's say you're right that people who believe in an "idealized, tolerant, peaceful God"...

are a minority. So what?

If the only meaning of God worthy of consideration or inclusion in the discussion is that of the majority, that parallels the reasoning of homophobes who argue that gay people aren't entitled to be included in the meaning of marriage because they are a tiny minority.

[HassleCat]

31. The Point Is...

He's trying to belittle people for being atheists, for rejecting the God that sends people to Hell for eating oysters, the God that inspires people to kill each other in His name. He tries to make atheists look foolish.

[cbayer]

33. Again, you have taken the writings of five different people and someone

made them into a single individual.

This might lead one to wonder whether you actually read this or are having a rather knee jerk reaction to what you think it is going to say.

What would be an example in any of this that would support your contention that "he" is trying to make atheists look foolish or in anyway belittling people for being atheists?

I think the message is that it makes perfect sense to reject the god that sends people to hell for eating oysters and that these writers also reject that god.

[HassleCat]

34. No

The crux of the piece is the part written by the university chaplain. He brings in the others to support his contention that his God is the nice one, and atheists are rejecting the "wrong" God. I realize people need to believe their God (or god) is nice, but all believers make this claim. When people were tortured to death during the Spanish Inquisition, the last words they heard were prayers for a kind and merciful God to have pity on them. My contention is this, and please pay attention here: Atheists are not foolish for rejecting the God they see at work in the world. In spite of the chaplain's claims to the contrary, there is more than ample evidence that God is real.

[cbayer]

37. People don't "need" to believe their god is nice.

Some people simply do believe their god is nice, just like some people simply do believe that the god they don't even believe in is not nice.

The crux is not that atheists are rejecting the wrong god. Eveyone is entitled to whatever concept of god they want.

And everyone is entitled to reject whatever concept they want.

Your concept of god is not a very nice one. Other people also reject that concept of god.

I do not think atheists are foolish for rejecting their concept of god and I do not think theists are foolish for embracing their concept.

Did you really mean to say that "there is more than ample evidence that god is real"? Are you a believer?

This last part has left me very confused.

[HassleCat]

44. I'm an atheist

I do not believe in any deity. I do understand why people believe in the "nice" God. Because they're nice people, and nice people believe in nice things, for the most part. I cannot prove that particular God does not exist, because there is no evidence either way. The God I can prove exists is the nasty one, and there is evidence all over the place for the existence of that God. Most atheists realize they (we) cannot prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of any supernatural being, whether we're speaking of God, demons, angels, cherubs, sprites, wood nymphs, etc. Most of us are simply rejecting organized religion, its insistence on imposing its beliefs on others by writing spiritual beliefs into civil law, and its willingness to provide excuses for people who do very, very bad things to others. Since there are many people, including many public officials, who worship the "nasty" God, and are willing to persecute others for not believing what they believe, that particular God does exist, in the only way that really matters, the way that kills people and throws them in prison. (Think inside and outside the US here.) So we know that God exists, and we reject that God. Your God? We don't think he exists, so we don't care very much either way.

[cbayer]

45. I'm confused.

If you are an atheist then why did you say, "there is more than ample evidence that God is real"?

You can't prove the nasty god. That's just a concept in your mind, and if you believe it exists, then you are not an atheist. I'm not even sure what one might call you.

To be clear, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with rejecting organized religion, fighting for separation, being against theocracy or anything else.

You can not speak in the 1st person plural. You speak only for yourself, and honestly, you have a very unique position.

And you most definitely can not speak about my god, because I don't have one.

[HassleCat]

46. Well, thanks for playing

You have descended into meaningless sophistry, so I have to point out there is nothing "very unique."

[Kelvin Mace]

3. I don't believe in any "gods"

of any sort. There might be a being with "god-like" powers, but even should such exists, why should I worship him?

If this "god" expects me to worship them, he/she/it can go piss up a rope. I have a life to live, and it is hard enough dealing with all the tin-plated, overbearing dictators with delusions of godhood in this life without having to worry about an actual sociopath with the power to back up the delusion.

[pokerfan]

11. Don't forget swaggering!

[gcomeau]

6. So basically...

To paraphrase, well, all of them...


"No no no Stephen Fry... you don't get it. The God I believe in is responsible for all the good stuff but none of the bad stuff... because, umm because. So you see you're talking about somebody else's idea of God! Mine is happy and fuzzy and stripped of all responsibility for every negative thing in the world even though I still think my God made it all. Problem. Solved. <Mic Drop!>"




Consider me not impressed.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. yup.

[edhopper]

8. And the question

"Than what is the God you do believe in is never answered"

Except to paint a vague picture of a being who may or may not do a damn thing.

But, plagues, parting seas, covenant arks, virgin births, miracles, resurrection, saints, all that shit is definitely real.

[cbayer]

16. It's answered all the time. All you have to do is ask.

It may be vague and it may be unclear about the extent to which it intervenes, but everyone has some concept that is pretty unique to themselves, whether they believe in god or not.

You have a concept, don't you?

BTW, plagues are most definitely real.

[edhopper]

17. I think that is more to the point

than believers saying "I don't believe is those other silly versions of God".

I should have said "ten plagues" for specificity.

[cbayer]

19. I don't see it as saying other versions are silly.

I just see it as saying, "If you think your version of god is the same as my version of god, you are mistaken."

It is much more likely, imo, that non-believers will label other people's concepts of gad as silly and sometimes assume that their concepts are shared by everyone else.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. The problem is that you have Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. who are describing gods...

that have NO relation to the god of the Bible/Torah/Koran. They are not, and this is not a NTS fallacy, true to their religions.

[cbayer]

23. IMHO, that god is wide open to interpretation.

For every description of him being one way, you can find another that is completely differenent.

Who is to decide if they are true to their religions or not, besides themselves. Why would anyone be able to sit in judgement of them, let alone someone who doesn't even believe in their god.

[phil89]

27. Because they adhere to

books they claim are the revealed word of their God/s. We can read it for ourselves.

[cbayer]

29. I don't know who this "we" is you refer to, but everyone can read it for themselves.

If you takeaway is that of a hostile, hateful god, then that is your takeaway.

Like you said, everyone can read it for themselves and come away with their own interpretation and it may be vastly different that yours.

And, frankly, if they are believers, their interpretation really is more meaningful that your concept of something you don't even think exists.

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Christianity isn't Hinduism, there is a limit as to how far you can stretch the word...

god before it simply doesn't apply anymore, nor can you claim to be a believer in the faith you claim to follow.

For example, the Christian god can't be deistic, if they were, nothing in the Bible happened, including Jesus.

It also can't be an impersonal god, transcendent sure, but still personal, otherwise, again, no Jesus, or 99% of the Bible happened.

This god of the Bible is described as the Creator, omnipotent, omniscience, and benevolent.

[cbayer]

40. I would agree that the claim of a completely non-interventional god

would contradict the basic tenets of christianity, but I've not seen any christians claim that.

But I think you go to far when you start saying "impersonal". I don't even know what you mean.

And then you go on to use other words that could be widely interpreted and do not imply any particular degree of intervention.

I would say that the concept can be interpreted very, very broadly.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Hmm, I'm thinking a god like Brahma or Tai Di, though honestly, interpretations vary...

and are mostly from Eastern and South Asian thought and religions.

It varies, but kinda like the Force in Star Wars, though that may be inadequate, rather impersonal, may or may not be conscious, but kinda runs things, if that makes sense. A god without the need for a body, may or may not have avatar manifestations, but they would be described as such, rather than as the god itself. The god of the Bible isn't described in this way, he has a body, he walked in the garden of Eden, he wrestled with Jacob, he sits on a throne or presiding over a type of celestial council, polytheism not yet edited out of the Bible.

Another way of looking at it is this impersonal force? being? etc.? is a God of Gods, above all that even the gods worship it. It doesn't intervene in human affairs directly, but governs the gods, which may or may not be avatar manifestations of this god.

Now there is a pet peeve of mine though, when people reinterpret their gods to win an argument. This is generally in relation to theodicy(Problem of Evil/Suffering). And mostly the subject of the OP.

[cbayer]

43. those are really interesting concepts.

My basic position since I first began thinking about it is that it would be arrogant to think there is nothing more evolved than ourselves. I have never felt that I could even begin to describe what that might be and have imagined that if it existed, it is essentially indescribable.

I am highly skeptical about what most humans describe but I find it hard to completely reject the notion that they have a sense of something greater.

I don't generally involve myself in arguments about the existence or nature of god, other than to say I don't know and am unwilling to take a stand either way.

As to the reinterpretation to win an argument, I'm not even sure what that would look like, but it's a discussion I would be likely to avoid.

It has been really nice to have discussions with you lately.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Hmm, the subjective God of the mind, in other words, not one that exists out there...

but one that exists in the minds of believers.

Its interesting when supposed believers admit this, such as Giles Fraser, who I would term, especially with what he said God was at the end of his article, an Atheist who is a fan of Jesus. But frankly, it seems there is no set definition for The God, so that god is meaningless.

What's infuriating is a meaningless god cannot be pinpointed, even if you do have problems with, for example, the problem of evil and/or suffering, its easily resolved with a god who is apparently not the creator of the universe(the only way out of that problem), not omnipotent or omniscience, but also claims that they are. It even goes so far as to make ridiculous claims such as god is actually love, or consciousness, or some other process in the brain.

The same for these theologians, the thing is this, I've been using terms like "your god" a lot lately, and the reason is simple. There are a billion different gods out there that believers believe in, none are actually real, I just use the term as a shorthand for that person's ego, for that is all god is. This isn't saying non-believers don't have egos, we do, we just don't think our egos exist outside our heads, nor are they directing us.

And arguments from Jesus definitely don't make any sense, why is salvation needed? If he's god, even the 1st century Jewish version, was he the creator? Did Jesus not introduce eternal hell into the religion? How is he any better than OT god?

[Silent3]

48. It's the God that's always more subtle than anything you can possibly object to...

...that these believers believe in.