God and theists.

[WinterHold]

God cannot be described.

The mistake of the Church and theism in general, is that it tried to describe God. 
The description of God involves installing him in a human-like form.

It begins with the body that is represented by simple to complicated structures like statues and tombstones, to psychological traits involving actions and ways of acting.


More or less, it's the mere idea of simplification that makes the idea more convenient for human minds to follow: simplicity make it easier for missionary movements to spread their theistic ideas, and make the current believers stay in belief since the belief is simple and doesn't require complicated thinking.

Christianity gave an example with the simplification of God, turning him into a father; giving birth to a human with super powers, and closing the belief with a statement of presenting the idea of the son being the father; the father being son; making God a human.

Since similar ideas worked for centuries in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, it was more of an evidence that it would work in Rome.

Islam followed the same footsteps but with minor changes to the main idea.

Shiite Islam gave an example by the appointing of 12 Imams, that represent God's sacred order. Without them, God will never be known. Only them can define what God is; silencing any voices that ask for another definition; since seeking knowledge out of the Imams domain is asking knowledge from an untrustworthy source; thus easing missionary campaigns and easing up the believing process on current believers.

In all other religions, from Judaism to Sunni Islam, passing by Hinduism and Buddaism, similar terminologies can be detected; but the source is always the simplification of God into a human formula that can rest up heads and make thinking and speculations -and raising questions- as low as possible.  

God cannot be described fully. Science proved it by showing the massive scale of our universe alone; and proving that their might be other multiverses which are just as massive. God is something we know nothing about but a few descriptions.

Neither a fake son, nor a gang of 12 Imams, not a militia of Sunni shamans, nor a group of Jewish Rabbis, would conclude him in a beard or two.

[Mister Agenda]

You have a point. Theists often say God is ineffable, and then proceed to eff all about him/her/them/it.

[Valyza1]

God can't be described completely, yes. Human attempts at description are just a way of trying to relate to God in order to exercise faith. That doesn't in and of itself make the attempt a mistake, it just makes the description necessarily inaccurate.

[Brian37]

God cannot be described.

The mistake of the Church and theism in general, is that it tried to describe God. 
The description of God involves installing him in a human-like form.

It begins with the body that is represented by simple to complicated structures like statues and tombstones, to psychological traits involving actions and ways of acting.


More or less, it's the mere idea of simplification that makes the idea more convenient for human minds to follow: simplicity make it easier for missionary movements to spread their theistic ideas, and make the current believers stay in belief since the belief is simple and doesn't require complicated thinking.

Christianity gave an example with the simplification of God, turning him into a father; giving birth to a human with super powers, and closing the belief with a statement of presenting the idea of the son being the father; the father being son; making God a human.

Since similar ideas worked for centuries in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, it was more of an evidence that it would work in Rome.

Islam followed the same footsteps but with minor changes to the main idea.

Shiite Islam gave an example by the appointing of 12 Imams, that represent God's sacred order. Without them, God will never be known. Only them can define what God is; silencing any voices that ask for another definition; since seeking knowledge out of the Imams domain is asking knowledge from an untrustworthy source; thus easing missionary campaigns and easing up the believing process on current believers.

In all other religions, from Judaism to Sunni Islam, passing by Hinduism and Buddaism, similar terminologies can be detected; but the source is always the simplification of God into a human formula that can rest up heads and make thinking and speculations -and raising questions- as low as possible.  

God cannot be described fully. Science proved it by showing the massive scale of our universe alone; and proving that their might be other multiverses which are just as massive. God is something we know nothing about but a few descriptions.

Neither a fake son, nor a gang of 12 Imams, not a militia of Sunni shamans, nor a group of Jewish Rabbis, would conclude him in a beard or two.

You, "God cannot be discribed"........

BINGO, and that is the core of every God/god/s/deity/ super natural divine entity claim in human history.

People do make those attempts, and have formed all sorts of religions based on those claims. But "God" cannot be described in any pragmatic universal sense that can be neutrally tested and falsified and independently peer reviewed.

The rest of your post is simply another apology that all religions make, you just change the words to point to your pet claim.

[brewer]

You can give a fantasy what ever descriptions and attributes you want to make it the most appealing.

Still a fantasy.

[vorlon13]

You can give a fantasy what ever descriptions and attributes you want to make it the most appealing.

Still a fantasy.

yet, an intriguing fantasy when they concede a specific allergy to chariots made of iron

[Valyza1]

You can give a fantasy what ever descriptions and attributes you want to make it the most appealing.

Still a fantasy.

You can also do the same for real things. How do you know which category God falls under?

[mediocrates]

You can give a fantasy what ever descriptions and attributes you want to make it the most appealing.

Still a fantasy.

You can also do the same for real things.   How do you know which category God falls under?

How do you give real things whatever attributes you want?  If I gave my computer the attributes of a glass of water I could drink it; that makes no sense because my computer is not a fantasy (at the moment    )

[brewer]

You can give a fantasy what ever descriptions and attributes you want to make it the most appealing.

Still a fantasy.

You can also do the same for real things.   How do you know which category God falls under?

Tell me how you can give the attribute of flight to a rock on the ground. 

No one, at any time, has been able to convince me that god(s) are any part of reality. If you think you have the ability to convince me, go for it fantasy boy.

[Brian37]

You can give a fantasy what ever descriptions and attributes you want to make it the most appealing.

Still a fantasy.

And unfortunately this is where, not just the Christian, but Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs falsely accuse the atheist of hate.

The atheist is not saying hate all religious people. Most atheists I would consider sane, only say that to mean "you got sold it and you merely like it".

Evolution produces good people and bad people as individuals WORLDWIDE. Atheists simply don't think good and bad are a battle between a divine super hero vs a super natural ground troll.

We do say we hate the logic, but no, atheists don't hate every single religious person, their logic, sure, but not every single theist as an individual.