What is God to you?

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

Why should try to charm anyone? All you lot (the A&A regulars) have done in this thread is shoot down the beliefs held by others, regardless of the fact that none of those people infringe in any way on how you live your life. And before you go on a rant about how religion does impede you, remember what the thread title is.

Seriously, more preaching from atheists goes on in these sort of discussions than from those who are religious

Who said he should try to charm anyone? The fact he can accuse anyone of self-aggrandisement and then assume that anyone who is incapable of formulating any semblance of an argument must be a housewife is so ironic as to be funny.

The OP specifically requested the views of atheists on who they think god is, a debate ensued. I'm not sure what part of an atheists view of god was expected to avoid treading on any theological toes. If you have an issue with the thread or how it is proceeding then either coherently argue your point or report it. Whining about de big bad people from A&A daring to enter into a debate about the existence of god aimed at atheists is, frankly, ridiculous.

This is a discussion forum, people discuss things, things are being discussed - last time I looked there was no rule stating debates on theology were off limits.

My name is URL wrote:

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and making them out to be of low intelligence or ignorant

What, like, assuming anyone who hasn't read dawkins or can formulate a semblence of an argument must be a housewife...that kind of making people out to be a bit thick - that post you thanked, that kind of inference?

raah!

Yes I will aknowledge that the success of a society depends on which moral system they hold. I'd also like to point out that any arguments relating to this can be removed by considering an idividual. Does "the individual" have to accept these to live in a society? No. Only most of the people.

Yes, I do not want to be raped is based on biological things. Much as "I do want to be raped" is. Hohohohohoh. I disagree with the use of the word sane, it's universal amongst animals, even. I think you should use something other than rape as an example. It confuses matters somewhat.

I heard a story about travellers dances once, from a girl doing her thesis on travellers. They go to the dance and all the guys and girls dance a way. And after the dance, the girls show bruises on their arms (from being pulled about) with pride as it indicates a certain amount of desirablity. Also the women are deliberately playing "hard to get" as is their custom. Anyway, I got carried away.

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who said he should try to charm anyone? The fact he can accuse anyone of self-aggrandisement and then assume that anyone who is incapable of formulating any semblance of an argument must be a housewife is so ironic as to be funny.

Sweet misinterpretation. The housewife reference you obviously didn't get. It's relevant to this very thread.

What, like, assuming anyone who hasn't read dawkins or can formulate a semblence of an argument must be a housewife...that kind of making people out to be a bit thick - that post you thanked, that kind of inference?

Probably a deliberate misinterpretation of hte post.

MagicMarker

I'm still perplexed as to how to I go about expressing my opinions on this topic without the use of empirical evidence, or lack there of?

I also wouldn't call myself an A&A regular (I post in there from time to time, that's about it) nor have I intended to make out the theists on this thread to be of low intelligence. Although, when people respond with stuff like ''what is god if not good?'' or ''god doesn't send you to hell'' it's hard not to feel a little frustrated with the level of ignorance shown.

Ickle Magoo

raah! wrote: »

Sweet misinterpretation. The housewife reference you obviously didn't get. It's relevant to this very thread..

What were you referencing?

raah!

That would be personal abuse, and I regret posting that. But that was just one of many examples. It can be a housewife, a nice young lad who hasn't learned off a load of arguments to defend his beliefs, an old man.

Now aswell, you're saying that belief in religion is ridiculous. That is the same as calling people who hold these views ignorant/low intelligence.

MagicMarker

raah! wrote: »

Now aswell, you're saying that belief in religion is ridiculous. That is the same as calling people who hold these views ignorant/low intelligence.

It is? How so?

raah!

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm still perplexed as to how to I go about expressing my opinions on this topic without the use of empirical evidence, or lack there of?

You perplexed about how you would go about expressing opinions on non-corporeal and immaterial things without using language routed in materialism?

I also wouldn't call myself an A&A regular (I post in there from time to time, that's about it) nor have I intended to make out the theists on this thread to be of low intelligence. Although, when people respond with stuff like ''what is god if not good?'' or ''god doesn't send you to hell'' it's hard not to feel a little frustrated with the level of ignorance shown.

Maybe this is just me, but it is possible to defend those statements. Just perhaps the people who uttered them aren't able to. They could go and read a book and learn off some arguments. It wouldn't really make a difference.

In my opinion, thinking that there is one correct way of thought, and that there are no arguments out there for certain positions is only a demonstration of your own narrowness of thought.

raah!

MagicMarker wrote: »

It is? How so?

ri·dic·u·lous/riˈdikyələs/

Adjective: Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

Stercus Accidit

raah! wrote: »

ri·dic·u·lous/riˈdikyələs/

Adjective: Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

Sounds reasonable enough, religious superstitions are ridiculous, if that is a reflection on its devotees so be it.

raah!

"New atheism" is a trend for little underacheivers who derive their self worth from mocking others through arguments they've copied verbatim.

Edit: If that's a reflection on it's devotees so be it.

MagicMarker

raah! wrote: »

ri·dic·u·lous/riˈdikyələs/

Adjective: Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

And how doesn't that translate to a low IQ and ignorance?

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Yes I will aknowledge that the success of a society depends on which moral system they hold. I'd also like to point out that any arguments relating to this can be removed by considering an idividual. Does "the individual" have to accept these to live in a society? No. Only most of the people.

So we've gone from saying that morality without god is totally arbitrary and can be "whatever we want" to saying that in order for a society to function it must live by a specific set of constrained rules that must be obeyed by most people. I'd call that an improvement wouldn't you? I'd also call that "the world as it exists today", wouldn't you?

raah! wrote: »

Yes, I do not want to be raped is based on biological things. Much as "I do want to be raped" is. Hohohohohoh. I disagree with the use of the word sane, it's universal amongst animals, even. I think you should use something other than rape as an example. It confuses matters somewhat.

I heard a story about travellers dances once, from a girl doing her thesis on travellers. They go to the dance and all the guys and girls dance a way. And after the dance, the girls show bruises on their arms (from being pulled about) with pride as it indicates a certain amount of desirablity. Also the women are deliberately playing "hard to get" as is their custom. Anyway, I got carried away.

I don't think use of the word rape confuses anything. A girl who willingly and happily allows her arm to be bruised has not been raped or anything of the sort. You used "love of government" because it's something that's subjective and variable and helps you make your point, every second person would have a different opinion on it but nobody wants to be raped unless they're mentally ill. That is a universal value upon which a system of ethics can be based. Why don't any human beings want to be raped? That's irrelevant. We're trying to build a system of ethical rules and that no humans beings want to be raped is a fact on which the system can be based.

Now for the rest of your post that wasn't covered by this one:

raah! wrote: »

Well you see that's massively different. And is beside the point

I do not believe that all moral systems without god are arbitrary. Here is an example. We can pick many examples, and note that many of the best ones start with value judgements

I love the government, the government knows best. The government can also punish me if I don't listen to them

Now from here we can again arrive at the two types (maybe there's more) of religious morality, the weak and strong types:

I love the government and think what they say is so correct, so I'm going to follow the laws.(strong)

I'm a dirty little coward, so I'd better not cross the government.

So, the reason these moral systems are not arbitrary, because you go from "the government is right" which is fairly arbitrary, but you can go back further from that if you'd like. Anyway, "the government is right, the government's laws are right"

So "why is that bad?" The government says so. This is similar to "God says so". We could further explore and compare these two, but those aren't the main points at the moment.

Another quick example to determine arbitrariness.

Doing things detrimental to societal living is bad.

Why.

Everyone agrees that societal living is good.

Why is it good?

Because everyone agrees it is.

Why do they agree that? (alternatively "why is something everyone agrees on good?". In fact, I think this is more relevant to your argument.)

It releases the right chemicals.

Why are those chemical releases good?

They feel good.

Why are things that feel good, good?

Assuming there is a god for a moment, the answer to that question is that god decided that things that feel good would be good. But then you have to ask why did god decide this? If he had a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is, then that reason is external to him and we continue the chain of whys infinitely. If he didn't have a reason then the decision is arbitrary. So even if we assume there is a god we still either create an infinite regress of whys or we have a system that is just as arbitrary as any other.

MagicMarker

raah! wrote: »

"New atheism" is a trend for little underacheivers who derive their self worth from mocking others through arguments they've copied verbatim.

Underachievers? That's your superiority complex shining through once again. One could even say you're mocking ''new atheists'', so therefore, by your logic, you're calling me (although I wouldn't call myself a 'new atheist') stupid and ignorant?

:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

"New atheism" is a trend for little underacheivers who derive their self worth from mocking others through arguments they've copied verbatim.

Edit: If that's a reflection on it's devotees so be it.

My name is URL wrote: »

Why should try to charm anyone? All you lot (the A&A regulars) have done in this thread is shoot down the beliefs held by others, regardless of the fact that none of those people infringe in any way on how you live your life.

Indeed


edit: also, if you think that these arguments are "copied verbatim", that's probably because there are actually very few arguments that are used by theists to argue for faith and the flaws in these arguments are very obvious. You'd hardly be surprised if you went into the maths forum and said 1+1=3 and got twenty people giving you the same response would you?

raah!

MagicMarker wrote: »

And how doesn't that translate to a low IQ and ignorance?

Havin' some trouble following the thread are you?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Underachievers? That's your superiority complex shining through once again. One could even say you're mocking ''new atheists'', so therefore, by your logic, you're calling me (although I wouldn't call myself a 'new atheist') stupid and ignorant?

:rolleyes:

Well, maybe its. Or maybe I'm applying the same kind of psychological explanations of new atheism as people are wont to apply to belief.

Surely if someone was secure in their intelligence, and had some means of deriving self worth they wouldn't need to go about picking arguments with people sheerly for the sake of derision and in my opinion, self inflation.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Surely if someone was secure in their intelligence, and had some means of deriving self worth they wouldn't need to go about picking arguments with people sheerly for the sake of derision and in my opinion, self inflation.

You never have disagreements with people no?

Donkey Oaty

Heidegger had some interesting things to say about this in Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik (Gesamtausgabe, Volume 3) but I can't quote directly from it as unfortunately my copy is on loan to the housewife next door.

coffee_cake

raah! wrote: »

Surely if someone was secure in their intelligence, and had some means of deriving self worth they wouldn't need to go about picking arguments with people sheerly for the sake of derision and in my opinion, self inflation.

That's why you're here arguing and insulting everyone's intelligence is it?
Ad hominems indeed

But I best be careful or I'll be accused of being a housewife! the shame! :eek:

Sam Vimes

Btw, this is what's called an ad hominem argument and I hate to tell you but in my experience it's usually the last ditch attempt by someone who can't respond to the points being put to them. It happened a lot with people who were voting no to the Lisbon treaty, they kept branding the yes side as arrogant when what was actually happening was the no side's arguments were all nonsense and could easily be shown to be nonsense. To quote Jimmy Carr, I'm not arrogant, the word you're looking for is correct.

MagicMarker

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Heidegger had some interesting things to say about this in Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik (Gesamtausgabe, Volume 3) but I can't quote directly from it as unfortunately my copy is on loan to the housewife next door.

lol

MagicMarker

raah! wrote: »

Surely if someone was secure in their intelligence, and had some means of deriving self worth they wouldn't need to go about picking arguments with people sheerly for the sake of derision and in my opinion, self inflation.

And yet here you are.

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You never have disagreements with people no?

Are the disagreements solely about theism? That person that said that they see god not as a being or creator, but a source of comfort isn't alluding to theism, they're alluding to finding comfort in an personally held idea. The people that automatically see that as irrational and attack it are not disagreeing with theism are they? They're disagreeing with somebody's personal philosophy

That's what I hate about threads like this. I'm an Atheist and yet I have no desire to belittle others who are not, or who have a philosophical view on something which incorporates god-words

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So we've gone from saying that morality without god is totally arbitrary and can be "whatever we want" to saying that in order for a society to function it must live by a specific set of constrained rules that must be obeyed by most people. I'd call that an improvement wouldn't you? I'd also call that "the world as it exists today", wouldn't you?

I'd call that a misunderstanding. It's no less arbitrary. It hinges on "surviving extra is good". And even then, lets accept that, and then rephrase it to "whatever one wants". Yes, most people follow that, and I've stated a millions, I'm not talking about those people. Who will act "morally" anyway, regardless of whether or not their system is arbitrary or not. "The world as it exists today" in my opinion, supports my arguments, and not yours. The difference is I'm focusing on people who are able to think for themselves, and whom an actual moral system is required, and your focusing on those who don't need a moral system in the first place. People for whom punishment by the government is enough.

I think you have a limited understanding of how people act in "the word as it exists today. There are theives robbers, corperate fat cats. Millions of people who profit from the suffering of others.

Look at it like this. A person can decide to act how he pleases to other people through is strength and ingenuity, based on your "it's nice to live together". And a society can act how it wants to other societies based on "it's nice to live together.

I don't think use of the word rape confuses anything. A girl who willingly and happily allows her arm to be bruised has not been raped or anything of the sort. You used "love of government" because it's something that's subjective and variable and helps you make your point, every second person would have a different opinion on it but nobody wants to be raped unless they're mentally ill. That is a universal value upon which a system of ethics can be based. Why don't any human beings want to be raped? That's irrelevant. We're trying to build a system of ethical rules and that no humans beings want to be raped is a fact on which the system can be based.

None of this makes anything less arbitrary. And I have already addressed the points your making

Assuming there is a god for a moment, the answer to that question is that god decided that things that feel good would be good. But then you have to ask why did god decide this? If he had a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is, then that reason is external to him and we continue the chain of whys infinitely. If he didn't have a reason then the decision is arbitrary. So even if we assume there is a god we still either create an infinite regress of whys or we have a system that is just as arbitrary as any other.

The infinite regress passes from the responsibilities of people to an omniscient god. Why is it good, because god said so. That's the end. For us, the arbitrariness is gone. And what god says is, by definition, good. This has been addressed millions of times. People start talking about love and things like that.

And are you changing from saying that your system isn't arbitrary to all systems are arbitrary?

Do you accept that it's logically impossible to cross hume's gap?

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

Are the disagreements solely about theism? That person that said that they see god not as a being or creator, but a source of comfort isn't alluding to theism, they're alluding to finding comfort in an personally held idea. The people that automatically see that as irrational and attack it are not disagreeing with theism are they? They're disagreeing with somebody's personal philosophy

That's what I hate about threads like this. I'm an Atheist and yet I have no desire to belittle others who are not, or who have a philosophical view on something which incorporates god-words

No disagreements are not solely about theism. People have disagreements about a great many things. Why must the word belitte be used? If somebody says something that's illogical can someone not explain why it's illogical without being seen to belittle them, even if the illogical thing is a personal philosophy?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You never have disagreements with people no?

I do.

Look on this forum. Look at any thread about religion or god or anything. Nearly half of the replies will be.

"yeaah, but Idon't believe in faries". And yes, there are arguments for that. But what purpose does that one liner serve? It's nothing other than a statement of perceived superiority. And if people haven't noticed this then they are blind.

Snake Pliisken

It represesnts the argument in one line. Brevity.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Btw, this is what's called an ad hominem argument and I hate to tell you but in my experience it's usually the last ditch attempt by someone who can't respond to the points being put to them. It happened a lot with people who were voting no to the Lisbon treaty, they kept branding the yes side as arrogant when what was actually happening was the no side's arguments were all nonsense and could easily be shown to be nonsense. To quote Jimmy Carr, I'm not arrogant, the word you're looking for is correct.

I've only given my estimations about new atheism between other arguments. I have addressed every argument put to me. It's not a response to the actual arguments, but to the attitude, I've explained that more than enough.

It represesnts the argument in one line. Brevity.

I would say that certain assumptions are necessary before "brevity" is made the primary goal in a debate.

MagicMarker

raah! wrote: »

I've only given my estimations about new atheism between other arguments. I have addressed every argument put to me. It's not a response to the actual arguments, but to the attitude, I've explained that more than enough.


I would say that certain assumptions are necessary before "brevity" is made the primary goal in a debate.

Attitude? So far you're the only one in this thread who has resorted to name calling.

Of course, what would I know? Being an ignorant underachiever.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I'd call that a misunderstanding. It's no less arbitrary. It hinges on "surviving extra is good". And even then, lets accept that, and then rephrase it to "whatever one wants". Yes, most people follow that, and I've stated a millions, I'm not talking about those people. Who will act "morally" anyway, regardless of whether or not their system is arbitrary or not. "The world as it exists today" in my opinion, supports my arguments, and not yours. The difference is I'm focusing on people who are able to think for themselves, and whom an actual moral system is required, and your focusing on those who don't need a moral system in the first place. People for whom punishment by the government is enough.

I think you have a limited understanding of how people act in "the word as it exists today. There are theives robbers, corperate fat cats. Millions of people who profit from the suffering of others.

Look at it like this. A person can decide to act how he pleases to other people through is strength and ingenuity, based on your "it's nice to live together". And a society can act how it wants to other societies based on "it's nice to live together.

Is punishment by the government (or their peers) not a reason?

You say that the world as it exists today supports your arguments but that under my system a person can decide to act how he pleases to other people through his strength and ingenuity. If a god exists then why is this, why are there thieves robbers and corporate fat cats? Looks to me like if there is a god these people can do what they want under his system too no?

Or would it be more logical to conclude that there isn't one?

raah! wrote: »

The infinite regress passes from the responsibilities of people to an omniscient god. Why is it good, because god said so. That's the end. For us, the arbitrariness is gone. And what god says is, by definition, good. This has been addressed millions of times. People start talking about love and things like that.

Why did god say that good things are good? Did he have a reason or are we just not allowed ask what it was, the "god works in mysterious ways" cop out?

raah! wrote: »

And are you changing from saying that your system isn't arbitrary to all systems are arbitrary?

No I'm not. I'm saying that if my system is arbitrary then so is yours

raah! wrote: »

Do you accept that it's logically impossible to cross hume's gap?

Yup, with or without a god. The god concept just allows us to avoid asking difficult questions by imagining an authority figure who we're not allowed to ask questions of. It's logic that amounts to little more than "a wizard did it"