Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What is God to you?
Options
Comments
-
-
Perhaps a better explanation of my position is this. God is my common reference point between myself and others. I realise that other people were created in God's image like I was. If God is in common with all others, then knowing God should ultimately help me in living out my life amongst others.
I'll explain where I'm coming from as well so you have some idea of my own self. I was brought up catholic, even served as an alter boy and lead choir boy up to about 12 years old. I never really got the significance of the god concept and just saw it as the same as the old Cuchulan stories. I enjoyed being an alter boy though - it was my first real "job" - and the choir was the same although I had a good voice before it broke and enjoyed the praise more than anything else.
During my teens, I saw the whole thing as a sunday-ruiner and felt completely out of touch with the religious teachers and "old fogies".
It was only when I went to college where I lived with a philosopy student that I took an interest in religion in general and started reading the bible and other works, not to understand "god" but to understand the concept.
What you describe above, "knowing" god by conversing with him is a concept I'll never get, and not because I fundamentally don't believe in a god but because I don't understand how you can know someone without having a proper two-way conversation? That particularly irked me back in college as they way I saw it, gods would always be a stranger to their flock.I don't know. Prayer of course is an intrinsic part of being in relationship with God. However, as for pleading for acceptance, I'm not sure about this. From what I have read of the Bible, it seems that Christianity is unique in the respect that it doesn't say that we have to do things to be accepted, but rather that God has accepted us first from the start. I don't need to pray to know that I am accepted.
I admire the way you take your religion seriously and don't fall into the category of "half arsed religious". They really annoy me - you know the ones that go to mass and spout a few repititious prayers and go home thinking their "sins" are gone for another week. These and the militant, opressive types sometimes make me put up angry posts on here and if you see them, just know I've been irked recently.
Sure, I'll never understand your belief but I can understand the need for acceptance which is common in everyone. I find it from my ego, you find it from your god, but it's essentially the same.I do pray in order to further my relationship with God, to praise Him when He is at work, to ask Him to give clarity in confusion, to pray for wisdom to more clearly communicate the good news of Jesus to my friends, on boards and so on. My journey with God is one that has ups and downs, and navigating through those, and seeing where God wants me to be is probably where prayer comes in.
Speaking of my ego above leads me nicely into this - when I was in college I tried a little experiment of treating myself/my ego (in the third person) as a god and tried praying to it every night for a few months. I never responded as "god" but I did feel better for it and explained to me some of the attraction to prayer. Essentially, what I was doing was what some peeps would just call sorting my head out and getting my plans straight in my head but when I was effectively talking through my problems and worries to a third person (easy to do after I read a lot of buddist zen books), I felt clearer in my direction. What you speak of above is what I felt during this time.I personally edge away from the view of prayer as a giant checklist, because I don't think that is what it is about. I personally believe that God will act according to His will, and that God can say no. If God never said no to our prayers, we would be God's puppeteers. God would no longer be Himself, but would be controlled by us.
With you on the checklist thing as stated above but the idea of intervention by god always confused me. I've heard some say he does and some say he doesn't. If he does, it's to protect the flock, if he doesn't, it's to protect our free will.
If you can explain that one to me, if there's a definitive answer as to if the christian god isn't one that intervenes, then why the need for prayer and if he does intervene, then why do we have the illusion of free will?For me that isn't being down on myself. It is a recognition of reality, I know what I am capable of, but I am glad that I can live by example. The point is, that I don't believe anyone is inherently good in that we have all done wrong.
That's the thing though, it is being down on yourself.
Yes, there's no black and white, we are all grey and capable of anything.....
...but...
Maybe it's just that I think everyone should have a proper ego and feed it regularly with healthy self-prayer but I really think we, as a race, are the most amazing thing ever and amazing on an individual scale. I don't think anyone should ever doubt themselves and while this might be too idealistic for this society right now, I'd nearly pray for it
Yup.I assume by my book, you mean the Bible?0 -
-
I'm interested in this, so I may ask a few more questions, and give a few of my thoughts.smokingman wrote: »I'll explain where I'm coming from as well so you have some idea of my own self. I was brought up catholic, even served as an alter boy and lead choir boy up to about 12 years old. I never really got the significance of the god concept and just saw it as the same as the old Cuchulan stories. I enjoyed being an alter boy though - it was my first real "job" - and the choir was the same although I had a good voice before it broke and enjoyed the praise more than anything else.
During my teens, I saw the whole thing as a sunday-ruiner and felt completely out of touch with the religious teachers and "old fogies".
It was only when I went to college where I lived with a philosopy student that I took an interest in religion in general and started reading the bible and other works, not to understand "god" but to understand the concept.
From my perspective, I didn't really think seriously about God or believing and the like until I read the Bible out of curiosity nearly 4 years ago. I was raised in the Church of Ireland.
As for church being a Sunday ruiner, I guess it can be if you don't understand why you are there, and if you don't feel you have any purpose being involved in it. Surveys done in other countries of church-goers suggest that most people who go to church, don't just want to go to church, but they want to be involved in some way.
Would it be fair to say that the appeal to going to church dropped off in your teens because you just didn't see the point in going any more? - I think I can understand that a lot actually. I think the more separation there is between the "religious teachers" and the general people, the more disillusionment people have because they aren't really a part of it.
As for philosophy students, I am one myself and indeed it is very interesting, but I find that often philosophy can be used to explain things away as well give interesting insights.smokingman wrote: »What you describe above, "knowing" god by conversing with him is a concept I'll never get, and not because I fundamentally don't believe in a god but because I don't understand how you can know someone without having a proper two-way conversation? That particularly irked me back in college as they way I saw it, gods would always be a stranger to their flock.
I don't think God of necessity has to speak in words, but God can also speak through experience. Also, for the Christian one often finds that the Bible often speaks to them personally in a certain situation, or in just coming to grips with God more.
I guess God isn't strange to me because I feel it quite natural that I should find out about Him. If He is my Creator, it is only natural that I should be reunited with Him.
I think often we don't do enough to explain properly to people how we think that this all works.smokingman wrote: »I admire the way you take your religion seriously and don't fall into the category of "half arsed religious". They really annoy me - you know the ones that go to mass and spout a few repititious prayers and go home thinking their "sins" are gone for another week. These and the militant, opressive types sometimes make me put up angry posts on here and if you see them, just know I've been irked recently.
I think for me trying to understand God is about more than having sins forgiven, it's about gaining an entirely new perspective to living itself.
As for the militant oppressive types, I assume you mean people who list sins and the like? Or? - I'd be interested in hearing your take on this.smokingman wrote: »Sure, I'll never understand your belief but I can understand the need for acceptance which is common in everyone. I find it from my ego, you find it from your god, but it's essentially the same.
It's probably more than acceptance. In fact a key Christian belief is that we (as believers) actually don't belong in the world, and that we are to try and live unique lifestyles for Jesus, rather than living as everyone else does. I think the more and more life goes on, I realise that this is really true from my own perspective.smokingman wrote: »Speaking of my ego above leads me nicely into this - when I was in college I tried a little experiment of treating myself/my ego (in the third person) as a god and tried praying to it every night for a few months. I never responded as "god" but I did feel better for it and explained to me some of the attraction to prayer. Essentially, what I was doing was what some peeps would just call sorting my head out and getting my plans straight in my head but when I was effectively talking through my problems and worries to a third person (easy to do after I read a lot of buddist zen books), I felt clearer in my direction. What you speak of above is what I felt during this time.
So, you kind of made your ego into a God, and prayed to it? - Is this a Buddhist idea or was it something that you just derived yourself?
Again, I'm quite curious about this!smokingman wrote: »With you on the checklist thing as stated above but the idea of intervention by god always confused me. I've heard some say he does and some say he doesn't. If he does, it's to protect the flock, if he doesn't, it's to protect our free will.
If you can explain that one to me, if there's a definitive answer as to if the christian god isn't one that intervenes, then why the need for prayer and if he does intervene, then why do we have the illusion of free will?
I personally think that God does intervene, but that He doesn't intervene always. I think it has to be compatible with God's nature for Him to accept it. Pretty much as we won't do something unless we feel that it is best to do. God knowing more than us, knows ultimately what is best.
As for the free will vs determinism thing. This is a debate that has been going on in Christian circles since the Middle Ages, but has been reignited thanks to John Calvin one of the Protestant reformers. I have to say I don't know absolutely, and that I probably will never know absolutely as to how that works.smokingman wrote: »That's the thing though, it is being down on yourself.
Yes, there's no black and white, we are all grey and capable of anything.....
...but...
Maybe it's just that I think everyone should have a proper ego and feed it regularly with healthy self-prayer but I really think we, as a race, are the most amazing thing ever and amazing on an individual scale. I don't think anyone should ever doubt themselves and while this might be too idealistic for this society right now, I'd nearly pray for it
I think that I am a confident individual, but ultimately I think we can only be made good by God's grace, rather than by our own action. Even if we make our best efforts to do more and more good things, there are always bad things that we have done.smokingman wrote: »Yup.
Funny that you should mention this, as I personally think the Bible chronicles humility of the highest order, in that Jesus died for our sins, despite the fact that He had never sinned.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Would it be fair to say that the appeal to going to church dropped off in your teens because you just didn't see the point in going any more? - I think I can understand that a lot actually. I think the more separation there is between the "religious teachers" and the general people, the more disillusionment people have because they aren't really a part of it.
To be honest, I didn't really have any connection to it moreso than seeing it as a waste of time. I saw first hand the "organised" bit of organised religion as an alterboy collecting the plates of money at the end of the mass and think that may have had something to do with it. My religious teachings in primary school involved illustrated storybooks that weren't discernable from normal kids fable stories and the teachers post primary were all nuns in their 70s so in effect, the lessons I learned in both schools were never taken seriously. I'm actually quite thankful for this when I look back.As for philosophy students, I am one myself and indeed it is very interesting, but I find that often philosophy can be used to explain things away as well give interesting insights.
It can be used to explain that we don't even exist so I get where you're coming from there. My preferred brand is that which deals solely with logic and my favourite book on the subject would probably be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" which disects logic itself to it's purest form....and there's engine maintenance tips as well
That's the core of my atheism; being a logic fan.Also, for the Christian one often finds that the Bible often speaks to them personally in a certain situation, or in just coming to grips with God more.
I find the same thing with people I know that read horoscopes and unfortunately, equate the two as being the same. Subjucating meaning often dissolves truth.I think often we don't do enough to explain properly to people how we think that this all works.
I find the religious who are strongest in voicing how all this works are the worst advertisements for their cause - don't get me started on creationism. :pac:I think for me trying to understand God is about more than having sins forgiven, it's about gaining an entirely new perspective to living itself.
As for the militant oppressive types, I assume you mean people who list sins and the like? Or? - I'd be interested in hearing your take on this.
Yup, they'd be the sort alright - those and anyone who uses religion to infer that someone who isn't praying to the same god is somehow inferior because "my god says so".
I'm sure the militant atheists could repeat this ad nausium but it's inherent in human nature and not the sole preserve of organised religion....it's just that when a god is used as the reason, I tend to cringe inside. The jewish thing of having a "god-given" right to the land they steal is an example.It's probably more than acceptance. In fact a key Christian belief is that we (as believers) actually don't belong in the world, and that we are to try and live unique lifestyles for Jesus, rather than living as everyone else does. I think the more and more life goes on, I realise that this is really true from my own perspective.
I'm curious about the "we don't belong here" idea. Is our natural place in heaven and we're only renting the gaff while the check clears?So, you kind of made your ego into a God, and prayed to it? - Is this a Buddhist idea or was it something that you just derived yourself?
Again, I'm quite curious about this!
Nah, it was my own take on a few ideas I had. I was curious about the methods of worship and seeing as I didn't believe there were any gods, I chose my own higher order, i.e. the id, ego whatever people call it.
I would actually recommend it though. :cool: Praying to something imaginary to some peeps may seem strange but when it's real, it takes on a real logical meaning. I'm not saying that I saw my ego as god-like with all the super powers etc but rather as something more tangible I could more easily relate to. I'd also like to state that I'm not schizo - I know there's only one meI personally think that God does intervene, but that He doesn't intervene always. I think it has to be compatible with God's nature for Him to accept it. Pretty much as we won't do something unless we feel that it is best to do. God knowing more than us, knows ultimately what is best.
So is this where "we are all children of god" comes from?
i.e. the idea that we should be glad we are treated as children?As for the free will vs determinism thing. This is a debate that has been going on in Christian circles since the Middle Ages, but has been reignited thanks to John Calvin one of the Protestant reformers. I have to say I don't know absolutely, and that I probably will never know absolutely as to how that works.
That makes two of us!I think that I am a confident individual, but ultimately I think we can only be made good by God's grace, rather than by our own action. Even if we make our best efforts to do more and more good things, there are always bad things that we have done.
I'm very much of the belief that people don't take enough responsibility for themselves and that "our own actions" are all there is. Assigning blame/credit for anything an individual does, to something else, be it god, the economy, whatever, is the one thing in society I would love to change most if I had the power. Shake them like mad and say "that was YOU!, not your escape mechanism from the real world, it was YOU!"
Unfortunately I am pretty realistic about that never happening.Funny that you should mention this, as I personally think the Bible chronicles humility of the highest order, in that Jesus died for our sins, despite the fact that He had never sinned.
...but when you think about it, he didn't actually die. He was a god and gods don't die. He may have changed form but as a god....ah never mind.
0 -
smokingman wrote: »...but when you think about it, he didn't actually die. He was a god and gods don't die. He may have changed form but as a god....ah never mind.
He sacrificed himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us because of the sinful nature that he made us with. You'd think he could have just decided not to give us the punishment and saved himself all that hassle. Who was he trying to impress?
And as you say he didn't actually sacrifice himself because he did it in the full knowledge that he was going to go back to the perfect paradise that is heaven a few days later.
And what kind of monster comes up with a system where you commit a crime and another innocent person is made so suffer for it anyway?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
smokingman wrote: »It can be used to explain that we don't even exist so I get where you're coming from there. My preferred brand is that which deals solely with logic and my favourite book on the subject would probably be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" which disects logic itself to it's purest form....and there's engine maintenance tips as well
That's the core of my atheism; being a logic fan.
I don't know if one could say that atheists are more logic fans than theists. That assumption is definitely at the root of most discussions between theists and atheists, but in fact I would consider myself to be quite a logical mind, in that I always seek to make sense of my surroundings rather than accepting that "it just is".smokingman wrote: »I find the same thing with people I know that read horoscopes and unfortunately, equate the two as being the same. Subjucating meaning often dissolves truth.
I think I best be careful and explain more thoroughly. I believe that the Bible communicates to us both personally, but also universally. I.E - That the Bible contains universal truth for all people as well as truth for personal situations. I believe truth is absolute, so I wouldn't seek to say that it is subjective.smokingman wrote: »I find the religious who are strongest in voicing how all this works are the worst advertisements for their cause - don't get me started on creationism. :pac:
Well, the problem lies in that a lot of us don't want to say that we don't know about a lot of things.smokingman wrote: »Yup, they'd be the sort alright - those and anyone who uses religion to infer that someone who isn't praying to the same god is somehow inferior because "my god says so".
I'm sure the militant atheists could repeat this ad nausium but it's inherent in human nature and not the sole preserve of organised religion....it's just that when a god is used as the reason, I tend to cringe inside. The jewish thing of having a "god-given" right to the land they steal is an example.
I personally do believe that God has defined an ethical code for us to live by, but at the same time I believe that we all have sinned, and that we are all inclined to sin. This is what I mean by saying that we can only be made righteous by grace, I.E - Jesus' death on the cross.smokingman wrote: »I'm curious about the "we don't belong here" idea. Is our natural place in heaven and we're only renting the gaff while the check clears?
I believe that I belong to God, and that my true home will be in heaven. At the same time, we are called to be different from the rest of the world, and to live for God first and foremost. It's in a number of places in the New Testament that this idea is derived from. Being in the world, but not of the world if you will.smokingman wrote: »Nah, it was my own take on a few ideas I had. I was curious about the methods of worship and seeing as I didn't believe there were any gods, I chose my own higher order, i.e. the id, ego whatever people call it.
I would actually recommend it though. :cool: Praying to something imaginary to some peeps may seem strange but when it's real, it takes on a real logical meaning. I'm not saying that I saw my ego as god-like with all the super powers etc but rather as something more tangible I could more easily relate to. I'd also like to state that I'm not schizo - I know there's only one me
I guess, for me I would believe that God isn't imaginary
I find it an interesting concept, that you would ascribe a personality to what is effectively you.smokingman wrote: »So is this where "we are all children of god" comes from?
i.e. the idea that we should be glad we are treated as children?
I don't think that is what it means. I personally believe that I am a child of God by adoption (through Jesus dying on the cross), but I don't believe that this means that I should act as a child, or that I am indeed a child in the common human interpretation. Rather I am a child in the respect that I would regard God as my heavenly Father. It's not a point of condescension really.smokingman wrote: »I'm very much of the belief that people don't take enough responsibility for themselves and that "our own actions" are all there is. Assigning blame/credit for anything an individual does, to something else, be it god, the economy, whatever, is the one thing in society I would love to change most if I had the power. Shake them like mad and say "that was YOU!, not your escape mechanism from the real world, it was YOU!"
Unfortunately I am pretty realistic about that never happening.
Remember at the start I admitted that yes we have responsibilities towards other human beings, but we also have a responsibility to God for failing to live as we ought in His world. When I do what is wrong (not necessarily only harming other people) I am disobeying God as well as disobeying other individuals (in the case of harm).smokingman wrote: »...but when you think about it, he didn't actually die. He was a god and gods don't die. He may have changed form but as a god....ah never mind.
He took the punishment we deserved, so that we mightn't have to. That's pretty much why people refer to Christianity as good news. We can be forgiven if we believe in Jesus, and we can be reunited with God and start a new life with Him.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
So just to clarify, a system of highly constrained rules that cannot be whatever we want them to be (but are somehow still arbitrary by your definitionI equate a moral system which is completely arbitrary and fails to differentiate between raping someone and not being caught and anything else than can be considered good, to be worthless, yes.
) and that must be obeyed by most people is not in any way better than having no system whatsoever and everyone living alone in caves coming together only to kill each other?
LOL, I don't think I'm using these terms!? I know what terms I'm using because I'm the one that's using them. Unless you're a telepath please stop telling me that you know better than me what's going on inside my brain.The fact that you think you are not using them demonstrates that you don't know what a "moral system" or an "ethical system" are. When We did go past that and start saying "right, so there's no moral system but only evolutionary constraints, you went back in a circle to talk about why you are moral.
You failed to grasp the point that without an "ought" it's not possible for you to criticise someone who is able to live in society whilst doing anything. The only constraint you placed was it's nice to live in society. The only argument you were able to offer is the absurd notion that anyone who does anything which is not conducive to societal living for other people will be caught.
The constraint I can put is that "if you do not obey these rules you will no longer be allowed live in the society". Once they have been expelled they can live by whatever rules they want. If you insist on an ought its "you ought to behave like this because you want to live in society"
God explains absolutely nothing. It's a convoluted way of saying "a wizard did it" so that we can stop asking difficult questions. It says that the world is so complex and wondrous that it must have been created by something even more complex and wondrous and when people point out that this even more complex and wondrous thing also requires explanation they stick their fingers in their ears and shout MAGIC!Wow, all I can say is that this is massively dishonest. I said "we can discuss this later" you really are incapable of discussing something without trying to get some digs in at theism. Now, there has to be a stopping point, and we're all familar with the argument, theists simply argue that god is the best stopping point. And it explains the most, whilst also containing many useful ontological attributes like existence by definition (which isn't one I accept mind you, but it's an example).
What's more, you don't accept the answer to these why questions based on lack of empirical evidence, but you've already stated that it doesn't make sense to ask "why is a rock", so your position here is self-contradictory.
Firstly, if you use terms like narrow minded, uneducated and narrow education one more time I will not be responding to you again. Ad hominem attacks do not help your argumentYou've never heard of logic?
.....
This is an example of you using certain loaded terminology without knowing. You mean "empirically accurate". As I said before, I'm not arguing against empiricism. I'm arguing against empiricism as the sole arbiter of truth, and your idea that it's more logical than other positions.
.....
I have no desire to convince anyone of that. My main line of argument with respect to this was that logic is different from empiricism. Empiricism could be classed as a subset of logic with certain axioms. What you are saying "empiricism tells you about empiricism, but other systems don't tell you about empiricism" is silly. I presume this is what you are saying, because something like "other systems make it impossible to verify claims" just shows that you've had a very narrow education. I then went on to say "why do people pick empiricism" and I said why (your claims of it being the only thing which can verify claims is absurd). And when we look at it, this choice of axioms was in no way superior or more logical than other choices. It is in fact simply narrow minded and uneducated, when there are so many other systems of though which tell us so many other things. We can proceed from there to connecting systems like rationalism with theism. Or arguing from theism from there. Yes, it's possible to make a god of the gaps type empirical argument, but it's not necessary, and people who do that are only doing it because in todays society there is a heavy reliance on empiricism, and lets say that its "evolutionarily constrained", but based on these constraints the value of empiricism is reduced to same level as the moral system you mentioned.
Now, logic led people to believe for 1500 years that heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Then Galileo dropped some stuff from the tower of Pisa and proved them all wrong. Logic can be useful but it is wrong far too often to be relied on solely. The universe is under no obligation to conform to the way our logic says it should be. If logic was enough science would be unnecessary. Things like the Monty Hall problem show the weakness of using logic alone to solve problems.
Could you please outline one of these systems by which we can gain knowledge without verifying it and still know that we are not mistaken?
There might be something beyond the material but until this can be shown to be the case all we have are millions of different and contradictory claims to knowledge of what goes on in this non material realm.Also, should find out whether or not you are a materialist, that is very important. At the moment your position is somewhat vague, but I think your complete dismissal of things like god based on lack of empirical evidence means that we could suggest that you only consider material things to be real?
Something doesn't need to exist to be a stronger source of something than something else?Notice I said, a million times, the word arbitrary. So we could have even defined a god such that it didn't need to exist for it to be a stronger source of morality than atheism. It wouldn't even need to be a god per say, just some arbitrarily define thing which imparts rules. That's why I'm saying you haven't understood the argument, which you have to admit that you haven't.
Objective means unbiased etc. Now, this "objective morality" would exist regardless of whether the arbitrary thing preceding it does. Again, this is a misunderstanding of logic on your part.
How can something be a source of something if it doesn't exist? Are you saying that there can be absolute right and wrong without the existence of god?Ridiculous, first we started to say "an atheistically based system is inferior to a non-atheistically based system". I told you why. Then you said "the theistically based one is based on something not true". I said ok, lets talk about that, and then we started to do that, but you kept trying to combine the two issues. You would think since I was saying things like "yes a system based on a wizard is also superior, you would have caught on"
Well, if you will take time to look at the argument. For one thing it was never my intention to argue for the christian god, this is something you kept bringing in because you thought it would bolster your argument for some reason.
....
That is logically correct. And if one were drawn into an argument where the starting point was the superiority of teleporters versus cars, one would of necessity talk about the superiority first.
Another point is that these two things lie in the same domain of material things, so it's not a complete analogy.
I think this is a major problem in this thread. You keep arguing about the superiority of a god based system over an atheistic one. You don't seem to have noticed that I have not contested that at any point in this thread and in fact have emphatically agreed with you all along.
If one were drawn into a debate where the starting point was the superiority of teleporters versus cars, would it not be necessary to point out that teleporters do not exist, at least once it has been established that the other person is not contesting their superiority?
I do not contest the superiority of a god based system over an atheistic one. Now prove your god exists or your point is moot0 -
-
-
So just to clarify, a system of highly constrained rules that cannot be whatever we want them to be (but are somehow still arbitrary by your definition) and that must be obeyed by most people is not in any way better than having no system whatsoever and everyone living alone in caves coming together only to kill each other?
We've already established that you accepted the logical impossibility of crossing hume's gap. Going from evolution to "a set of rules" is crossing that. This has already been argued and conceded pretty much. That's why it's arbitrary.
Now it's better than no system, but not better than any of the other openly arbitrary systems I listed. Morality from evolution is one of the weakest moral systems I've ever heard, and it crosses hume's gap when people try to describe it as being derived directly from evolution. Not only is it not conducive to what we would all consider good (here we use the term to mean the subjective standard that describes the opposite to things like rape, selfishness etc.) behaviour, it's logically inconsistent.The constraint I can put is that "if you do not obey these rules you will no longer be allowed live in the society". Once they have been expelled they can live by whatever rules they want.
I anticipated this response and added in a rebuttal in my edit.
What about why questions? And if you only accept the word explain to mean "give empirical cause for" then feel free to interpret that as some other word like... "answers"God explains absolutely nothing.It's a convoluted way of saying "a wizard did it" so that we can stop asking difficult questions. It says that the world is so complex and wondrous that it must have been created by something even more complex and wondrous and when people point out that this even more complex and wondrous thing also requires explanation they stick their fingers in their ears and shout MAGIC!
If you spend your time arguing with creationists from america (a popular trend within new atheism, and an important distinguishing factor imo) then perhaps you will arrive at these conclusions.
You keep reverting to a completely empirical view of god, which is not something I have ever offered.
This is a strawman argument. But this terminology kind of irritates me, and I believe it's popularity has arisen from internet debates where people desire only to win an argument, gaining superiority (which is assumed from the start) and this obscures their view of the opponents position.Firstly, if you use terms like narrow minded, uneducated and narrow education one more time I will not be responding to you again. Ad hominem attacks do not help your argument.
Ok, that's fair enough. But can you see the consistency with me saying this sort of stuff and you claiming that all theists are automatically ridiculous? That type of statement elicits a similar response.
I'm well aware of logic alone failing. Another example can be naieve mathematics, which doesn't use axioms and crashes into contradictions. This was never what I was talking about. Logic is not a starting position but a way to proceed from one position to the next. Science is the use of logic with axioms from empiricism.Now, logic led people to believe for 1500 years that heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Then Galileo dropped some stuff from the tower of Pisa and proved them all wrong. Logic can be useful but it is wrong far too often to be relied on solely. The universe is under no obligation to conform to the way our logic says it should be. If logic was enough science would be unnecessary. Things like the Monty Hall problem show the weakness of using logic alone to solve problems.
When did I mention such systems? That's a strawman (I'll start using this for brevity, and I suppose it makes sense to use the same language being used in the majority of internet debates)Could you please outline one of these systems by which we can gain knowledge without verifying it and still know that we are not mistaken?
Do you mean until it can be shown by science, a system which operates on empirical principles? Do you see how that is contradictory?There might be something beyond the material but until this can be shown to be the case all we have are millions of different and contradictory claims to knowledge of what goes on in this non material realm.
If there is nothing beyond the material, then you hold a position of monism with respect to the mind-body problem. And a position of materialistic monism at that. This completely eliminates free will, and makes all your earlier discussion of morality, and pretty much everything, self contradictory.
I was using exist in the sense that you would use it, exist materially. Many people do not attribute a material existence to god. And what's more, it doesn't matter. You could be a materialist and (despite everything you say being negated by determinism) and say "god doesn't exist" but "moral systems derived from the concept of god are superior to others".Something doesn't need to exist to be a stronger source of something than something else?How can something be a source of something if it doesn't exist? Are you saying that there can be absolute right and wrong without the existence of god?
Yes and indeed I have been saying this the whole time. The definitions of these then may or may not be arbitrary, mostly they are.
I would even go as far as to say that anytime anyone uses moral statements, they have to adopt an absolute definition of them.I think this is a major problem in this thread. You keep arguing about the superiority of a god based system over an atheistic one. You don't seem to have noticed that I have not contested that at any point in this thread and in fact have emphatically agreed with you all along.
I think this is mainly a problem with the format. If we were to organise our posts in some more neat fashion we wouldn't be confusing each others arguments for one thing as being for another thing.
I did however go past that, and say that all moral systems must be arbitrary. You said yours was non-arbitrary, and I then went on to say that it was arbitrary, and that this particular arbitrary moral system was weaker than nearly all others.If one were drawn into a debate where the starting point was the superiority of teleporters versus cars, would it not be necessary to point out that teleporters do not exist, at least once it has been established that the other person is not contesting their superiority?
I think we have infact moved onto the question of existence.I do not contest the superiority of a god based system over an atheistic one. Now prove your god exists or your point is moot
I have no desire to prove this, my only desire is to contest claims that such a belief is ridiculous. I've made all these arguments, you haven't been quoting them however.
The arguments concern the perceived strength of your position, and your reduction of the existence of god into an empirical statement. It is my firm belief (again if you have a problem with this type of language replace the word belief with "I'm absolutely certain about everything I say"), that the main motivating factor for belief in (at least the christian god, in this one instance I will use this example) a god, is very far from "an explanation for empirical phenomena". That's a deistic position. Now, you can say "but look at american creationists", this is only a reaction to the position that science explains away god by people who aren't that well educated (I'm sure you'll have no problem with me disparaging creationists like this). If they had better arguments, they would probably use them instead but a "god of the gaps" style thing is much easier.0 -
-
-
I don't know if one could say that atheists are more logic fans than theists. That assumption is definitely at the root of most discussions between theists and atheists, but in fact I would consider myself to be quite a logical mind, in that I always seek to make sense of my surroundings rather than accepting that "it just is".
I know it is indeed a common debate and I'm sure you can see where both sides are coming from but you seem to have selective logic the same as I have selective belief.
I know you can be logical and yet still believe in things that can't be proven (I know a few scientists that believe there's a god), just the same as I can still believe a hunch even though all logical thought would point otherwise. Thing is though, logic is, and always will be more powerful than god in my eyes and I do find it hard to ever imagine it otherwise. That whole proof thing is where it gets sticky for me. I know you feel the same about god and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.I think I best be careful and explain more thoroughly. I believe that the Bible communicates to us both personally, but also universally. I.E - That the Bible contains universal truth for all people as well as truth for personal situations. I believe truth is absolute, so I wouldn't seek to say that it is subjective.
It's the interpretation of absolute truth that starts a bargie
If you could explain your thoughts on what this is though, I'd be interested to hear. Is it just the "be good to those around you" or something else?
I think a lot of atheists get annoyed at this, thinking that the religious use it as a superiority stick to hit them over the head with when being nice to others is simply an evolutionary trait in the human race and not something exclusive to the teachings of Jesus.Well, the problem lies in that a lot of us don't want to say that we don't know about a lot of things.
Same goes for everyone dude, I'd really like to know what happens inside a black hole and whether, as one new theory suggests, separate universes exist within them. I do sometimes pretend I know when I'm drunk thoughI personally do believe that God has defined an ethical code for us to live by, but at the same time I believe that we all have sinned, and that we are all inclined to sin. This is what I mean by saying that we can only be made righteous by grace, I.E - Jesus' death on the cross.
Can I ask what you think the difference between societal ethical codes and gods defined one is? I suppose it's an eternal debate but the way I see things, we're pretty good at seeing what is good and what is bad already.I believe that I belong to God, and that my true home will be in heaven. At the same time, we are called to be different from the rest of the world, and to live for God first and foremost. It's in a number of places in the New Testament that this idea is derived from. Being in the world, but not of the world if you will.
There's a thing I disagree with on a personal level, that you "belong" to god.
I think of that and I think of how wives used to "belong" to their husbands.
Kinda riles me up to be honest but if you're ok with it then I won't press.I guess, for me I would believe that God isn't imaginary
I find it an interesting concept, that you would ascribe a personality to what is effectively you.
It wasn't really a separate personality, it was me all along. Felt like a bit of a tool at the start but towards the end, I had logical debates on what I felt I should do against what was best for my own interests. I kinda failed the whole god bit as I ended up replying even though I spent the first two months praying without replying....and when I say praying, I mean repeating a mantra I concocted that had the same rhythmic drone as say Hare Krishna or Buddhist tunes. It did praise me to high heaven though and involved me kicking Optimus Primes ass back to cybertron :pac:I don't think that is what it means. I personally believe that I am a child of God by adoption (through Jesus dying on the cross), but I don't believe that this means that I should act as a child, or that I am indeed a child in the common human interpretation. Rather I am a child in the respect that I would regard God as my heavenly Father. It's not a point of condescension really.
I get what you're saying alright but I still see it as purposely throwing your free will away and doing "what you're told", if you will.Remember at the start I admitted that yes we have responsibilities towards other human beings, but we also have a responsibility to God for failing to live as we ought in His world. When I do what is wrong (not necessarily only harming other people) I am disobeying God as well as disobeying other individuals (in the case of harm).
Putting god first before your loved ones is something I will never even pretend to understand but this is what I think you're getting at there.
I'd like to think it wasn't but I know one or two people personally who take their religion as seriously as you do and that bit scares the bejebus out of me when I talk to them about this in particular.He took the punishment we deserved, so that we mightn't have to. That's pretty much why people refer to Christianity as good news. We can be forgiven if we believe in Jesus, and we can be reunited with God and start a new life with Him.
I've never seen it as good news but I still think that religion was necessary all the same. In these modern times though, I do think it's holding us back with the automatic guilt and reward mechanism you speak of.
We may have completely opposite views Jackass and I'll never understand you completely but cheers for not repeating gospel verses at me :cool:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement