Does atheism discount all gods?

kiffer

john47832 wrote: »

Yes arrogance to me is a sign of a superior ego - to refer to a post as a "sound bite" to me is an attempt extract all meaning from a point of view, an ideal way to massage the ego

But it is a sound bite... it is a short quip which is meant to sound good!
The 'arrogance' you infer from my post came from calling it pointless.
You're opinion was "on the christian side their belief is that outside of themselves, standing by their god, wheras atheists stand by themselves and their belief is their knowledge" ... which doesn't really link all that well with the oft repeated sound bite "The Ego is God to an Atheist".
Yes I'm trying to extract meaning form your point of view... I'm not trying to eliminate that meaning though... I actually don't see the link here.

Faith is not a blind belief and not for the stupid - its for the needy, which all people become at one point in life - lack of belief indicates to me a lack of need, lack of need to me shows self sufficiency - an ideal playground for a superior ego

Faith is a tricky word... I trust that the seat belts in the car will work as they are designed to ... I trust that the designers knew what they were doing when they designed them... that the factory was not negligent when it made them and so on... Do I have faith in them? every interaction with another human being or machine made by human hands take a certain amount of trust, but we have constant real feed back from the people around us... and it would be foolish to instantly and completely trust every single person we meet and interact with...

1, There is nothing wrong with a bit of self-sufficiency.
2, No one is totally self-sufficient, we all rely on people around us to get by... when times are hard we lean on friends, family and other people... and when they need us we are there in turn to give our support to them...

If we're really stuck maybe we crack, and like Tom Hanks' character in Castaway and create an imaginary friend, one that is all ways there and never ever gets sick of our whinging... some one who can take the load and will never talk back... because frankly it's invisible, inaudible and intangible because it is not a real friend... it is the "feeling" of a friend. If that stops you going even more crazy then so be it ... maybe it's a good thing.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

everybody stop making provocative generalisations.

Heh.

dvpower

Zillah wrote: »

Heh.

Well, you would say that.

Stercus Accidit

john47832 wrote: »

Yes arrogance to me is a sign of a superior ego - to refer to a post as a "sound bite" to me is an attempt extract all meaning from a point of view, an ideal way to massage the ego

Faith is not a blind belief and not for the stupid - its for the needy, which all people become at one point in life - lack of belief indicates to me a lack of need, lack of need to me shows self sufficiency - an ideal playground for a superior ego

I went to great effort to address your post assuming the freudian definition of the ego, your subsequent post to kiffer implied it was a simple accusation of arrogance.

If you could clarify your position, it would be easier for people to engage with it.

Stercus Accidit

Zillah wrote: »

Heh.

I had a response to the above posts which was no more than 3 words myself before the whole thought out reply. Was I wrong to second guess myself?

I think I may well have been.

mark renton

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I went to great effort to address your post assuming the freudian definition of the ego, your subsequent post to kiffer implied it was a simple accusation of arrogance.

If you could clarify your position, it would be easier for people to engage with it.

But it was egotistical and arrogant, an attempt to extract all meaning and leave nothing - in freudian terms the attempt to perfect ones own belief by dismissing anothers

My position is that I believe we all believe in something - in religious terms this is defined as a God - so I must ask the question: What is an Atheist left with?

Sam Vimes

john47832 wrote: »

My position is that I believe we all believe in something - in religious terms this is defined as a God - so I must ask the question: What is an Atheist left with?

Well our position wouldn't be that we all believe in something. I believe in something when there is evidence to support it. Not everyone believes things just because they want them to be true. We do not define our lives by which particular bronze age stories we choose to believe.

If an atheist believes in anything it would be the people around him, society. I don't know that I'm not going to be robbed every time I leave the house but I believe that most people are good so my chances of being robbed are very small.

Of course that position is supported by a lifetime of not being robbed so it's not really in the same league as believing something for which there is no evidence. I know my chances of being robbed are very small.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know my chances of being robbed are very small.

But even so, you lock the house, stick on the alarm and get contents insurance.....

Perhaps believing in God is like the insurance policy; 'tis very unlikely he exists but just to be sure to be sure.....:eek:

CerebralCortex

drkpower wrote: »

But even so, you lock the house, stick on the alarm and get contents insurance.....

Perhaps believing in God is like the insurance policy; 'tis very unlikely he exists but just to be sure to be sure.....:eek:

Thats not the same thing becuase people do actually have their homes broken into and there is evidence for that.

pts

drkpower wrote: »

Perhaps believing in God is like the insurance policy; 'tis very unlikely he exists but just to be sure to be sure.....:eek:

Pascal, is that you?

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

But even so, you lock the house, stick on the alarm and get contents insurance.....

Perhaps believing in God is like the insurance policy; 'tis very unlikely he exists but just to be sure to be sure.....:eek:

That's Pascal's wager there. The problem with it is you can't make yourself believe in something, you can only tell other people you believe. If God exists as described he'd see right through that

dvpower

drkpower wrote: »

But even so, you lock the house, stick on the alarm and get contents insurance.....

Perhaps believing in God is like the insurance policy; 'tis very unlikely he exists but just to be sure to be sure.....:eek:

But if you take out your insurance policy with AIB, Bank of Ireland aren't going to pay out on it.

pH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's Pascal's wager there. The problem with it is you can't make yourself believe in something, you can only tell other people you believe. If God exists as described he'd see right through that

Without wishing to derail this into another Pascal's wager thread, that to me a minor problem with Pascal's wager. The real problem is that very very few (if indeed any) belief systems promise you anything for mere 'belief', instead insisting on ritual, rules, observance and worship of the deity (or deities), the problem then being that there's no way to cover all your bets as these rules and rituals are incompatible with each other.

Come on, how can you take anyone seriously about Pascal's wager until they've made a pilgrimage to Mecca whilst wearing god's special underwear.

Back OT, the word (and concept) of atheism predates the word 'Deism', and I personally feel that there's a strong argument that deists *are* atheists.

Theists are those who believe in a personal intervening God, atheists are those that are *not* theists. Deists are not theists, and therefore are atheists.

robindch

pH wrote: »

The real problem is that very very few (if indeed any) belief systems promise you anything for mere 'belief', instead insisting on ritual, rules, observance and worship of the deity (or deities), the problem then being that there's no way to cover all your bets as these rules and rituals are incompatible with each other.

Most of the recently-evolved variations of christianity do promise to make you immortal in return for accepting that their particular variation is true. Same is kind of true for islam, where all you've to do is to say a certain phrase, after which you can refer to yourself as a muslim in good standing. Once you've adhered yourself to the creed, then you've to start investing in the add-on activities, but they're not strictly necessary (though I don't recall any religious person ever saying that you can just say the magic words, and never consider it again).

Also, Pascal's Wager is valid when there are only two choices available -- non-belief, and a religion which is tacitly assumed to be the right one. There are, of course, an infinite number of possible alternate religions, so the chances of picking the right one are therefore zero.

As an argument in favor of belief, it's got some sizable holes.

kiffer

robindch wrote: »

Also, Pascal's Wager is valid when there are only two choices available -- non-belief, and a religion which is tacitly assumed to be the right one. There are, of course, an infinite number of possible alternate religions, so the chances of picking the right one are therefore zero.

As an argument in favor of belief, it's got some sizable holes.

Religions, they can't all be right, they can all be wrong.

drkpower

dvpower wrote: »

But if you take out your insurance policy with AIB, Bank of Ireland aren't going to pay out on it.

But just as AIB & BoI have Brian Lenihan, I would imagine that all the different Gods have an all-powerful God who backs them up and bails them out if the individual Gods get into difficulties by virtue of answering prayers far too easily and without adequate security.

Perhaps Brian Lenihan is God...

mewso

I don't know who built my house or exactly how they did it. I'm going to refer to them as God.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

As an argument in favor of belief, it's got some sizable holes.

Yes. It's actually a dumb outlook if it's intended as anything more than a philosophical joke. Presumtion is a sin, the Christians wised up to it many moons ago!

stevejazzx

mewso wrote: »

I don't know who built my house or exactly how they did it. I'm going to refer to them as God.

Buiding a house is known doable thing. The process is known, people who can do it are known. It's a documented thing etc etc ect therefore it's not same as a universe. I've already had this argument. Jaysis.

Galvasean

stevejazzx wrote: »

Buiding a house is known doable thing. The process is known, people who can do it are known. It's a documented thing etc etc ect therefore it's not same as a universe. I've already had this argument. Jaysis.

Yes, well i don't personally know how it's done and when I looked into it, it looked confusing, so I'm just gonna go with the more simple alternative.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

Most of the recently-evolved variations of christianity do promise to make you immortal in return for accepting that their particular variation is true.

What an ingenius memetic adaptation.

ChocolateSauce

kiffer wrote: »

Religions, they can't all be right, they can all be wrong.

Was that a Star Trek moment, where the techno-jargon is summarised with a simple yet clever analogy?

stevejazzx

Galvasean wrote: »

Yes, well i don't personally know how it's done and when I looked into it, it looked confusing, so I'm just gonna go with the more simple alternative.

Homelessness?

Seriously though, you've somewhat missed the point entirely. I don't encourage assigning the 'god' label to things unknown. I am simply pointing out that such a thing as our universe might qualify as something mysterious enough to accquire that provisional title (not meant in the religious sense of course) because it's becomes by default a credible description in the interim between awe and gradual understanding. You can be strictly literal and call that nonsese- that's fair enough but i think the problem goes beyond semantics.

Galvasean

stevejazzx wrote: »

Seriously though, you've somewhat missed the point entirely.

<Long and well thought out point>

Ah, well you see that was just a poor attempt at humour by myself.

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Homelessness?

Seriously though, you've somewhat missed the point entirely. I don't encourage assigning the 'god' label to things unknown. I am simply pointing out that such a thing as our universe might qualify as something mysterious enough to accquire that provisional title (not meant in the religious sense of course) because it's becomes by default a credible description in the interim between awe and gradual understanding. You can be strictly literal and call that nonsese- that's fair enough but i think the problem goes beyond semantics.

I don't know if you've answered this yet so what are the criteria by which something can be called God?

The thing is that in my opinion the descrption of "mysterious" does not qualify. Everything is mysterious until we understand it. Lightning was a mystery for most of history but that doesn't mean it's God

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know if you've answered this yet so what are the criteria by which something can be called God?

The thing is that in my opinion the descrption of "mysterious" does not qualify. Everything is mysterious until we understand it. Lightning was a mystery for most of history but that doesn't mean it's God

That's I mentioned the words 'default' and 'interim'.

Sam Vimes

But why use the word God? Why not use smizmar as the interim word if it's just a label for something mysterious? The word God has numerous connotations beyond mysterious

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But why use the word God? Why not use smizmar as the interim word if it's just a label for something mysterious? The word God has numerous connotations beyond mysterious

Because the word 'god' explains all those things in a succinct manner, in a way, unlike smizmar or mishydum, that everyone understands (even if some chose to purposefully remove context). It also carries the gravitas of awe and mystery that other words don't. It also has an etymology that lends itself to explanation of all things unknown. You whole argument is based on the notion that God has to mean white bearded man in the sky even though scientists have been using the word for hundreds of years in another context. I still find no reason why an atheist could not say the stars are 'godly' or believe that were created by something 'godly'.

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Because the word 'god' explains all those things in a succinct manner, in a way, unlike smizmar or mishydum, that everyone understands (even if some chose to purposefully remove context). It also carries the gravitas of awe and mystery that other words don't. It also has an etymology that lends itself to explanation of all things unknown. You whole argument is based on the noting that God has to mean white bearded man in the sky even though scientist have been using the word for hundreds of years in another context. I still find no reason why an atheist could not say the stars are 'godly' or believe that were created by something 'godly'.

No my argument is not based on "white bearded man", it's based on the fact that the word God means a lot more than "mysterious". As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

But that doesn't mean that it is magic or that it's acceptable to give it the label magic until you understand it better. Here are some of the generally accepted connotations of the word god that do not fit with what you are trying to describe:

1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Timeless and infinite
4. Supernatural
5. Personal
6. Benevolent

Then to get more specific:

1. The creator of the universe
2. Involved in the writing of the bible/koran/whateveryourbookmightbe
3. Concerned with human affairs
4. The giver of and authority behind morality
5. The provider of an eternal afterlife (whatever you might think that afterlife might be
6. The performer of miracles
7. The sender of prophets and angels
8. The guider of evolution
9. The cause of natural disasters as punishment for whatever

Your argument is basically the old theistic line "I don't know so it must be God". The whole point of atheism is that you don't label something God just because you don't understand it. The only label you can put on something unknown is "unknown". It is not only acceptable but advisable to simply have an "unknown" category rather than mislabelling everything you don't understand as God

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your argument is basically the old theistic line "I don't know so it must be God".

Nope. No...no. The hypothetical guy in the OP isn't trying to explain anything. He is taking upon himself to believe in an unknown based on how overwhelmed he is by existence. He calls this 'interested entity' god. That's post one. We're now at post 80 or something and people are still saying 'oh, so you're explaining the unknown by calling god are you?'. No, no I'm not. the idea is that someone, who is an atheist might also have an 'irrational' (in the most clinical sense) sense belief that something 'godlike' (meant in the modern sense) exists.

sv wrote:

The whole point of atheism is that you don't label something God just because you don't understand it.

The whole point of atheism is not believing in recorded gods of holy books.
there are other accompanying facets also but they don't declare a sanction on all things non-clinical.

sv wrote:

The only label you can put on something unknown is "unknown". It is not only acceptable but advisable to simply have an "unknown" category rather than mislabelling everything you don't understand as God

Again it's not everything. No one in the hypothetical is doing that. the areas you're specifically addressing in your rebuttals aren't quite in sync with the line of thought I tired to express in the OP. This is why we're going 360 I think.

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Nope. No...no. The hypothetical guy in the OP isn't trying to explain anything. He is taking upon himself to believe in an unknown based on how overwhelmed he is by existence. He calls this 'interested entity' god. That's post one. We're now at post 80 or something and people are still saying 'oh, so you're explaining the unknown by calling god are you?'. No, no I'm not.

'oh, so you're explaining the unknown that is also overwhelming by calling god?'. To even use the word entity is to try to place criteria on something completely unknown, you're saying it's a being of some kind, and to use the word interested is to give it human characteristics. It could just as easily have been a natural phenomenon. You wouldn't call lightning 'an interested entity'. The word God has specific connotations that you can't just pretend aren't there. If it's a huge explosion of matter and anti-matter, it's not God. If it's anything but 'an interested entity' it's not God and human beings are in no position to state that it is 'an interested entity'.

stevejazzx wrote: »

the idea is that someone, who is an atheist might also have an 'irrational' (in the most clinical sense) sense belief that something 'godlike' (meant in the modern sense) exists.

What do you mean by modern sense? Whose modern sense? Please list the criteria by which something can be judged to be a god. If you can't list the criteria then the word is meaningless and can be ascribed to anything