What is God to you?

raah!

kylith wrote: »

I don't agree.

Chamber's dictionary definies 'moral' as:
1 belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong. 2 conforming to what is considered by society to be good, right or proper; ethical.
(Emphasis mine.)

The examples given earlier conform to definition 2. Animals which live in a pack often have a rigid social structure with rules on who can do what, when, where and with whom, their own moral code; this adherance is an example of animals conforming to what their society considers to be good, right and proper. It is moral for an animal to suckle an orphan even though they have nothing to benefit from it* because it is beneficial to their society, and their society considers that good and proper. It is a moral act.

*the infant will not pass on the adopter's genes.

Yes we can describe their actions as moral, depending on our definitions. But for them to have morals, they must have this conception of good right and ethical, blah blah blah. Many people argue that animals operate via instinct.

We could further go into using the various different kinds of morality, but it doesn't really matter. If you want to call that morality fine. Then morality as I have been using it is still more moral.

Mind you, I'm not conceeding. I'm just saying it hasn't as much bearing. Ye have been saying "we don't need religion for morality, it occurs naturally", the reason I would be so apprehensive to use the same word to describe this and other kinds of morality have already been outlined.

Ickle Magoo

You know you've lost the argument when you have to resort to playground name calling and personal assumptions about opposing posters, pathetic.

It's dog spelt backwards!

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You know you've lost the argument when you have to resort to playground name calling and personal assumptions about opposing posters, pathetic.

You have a signature which is about scientists. I never called you a name, I made a valid assumption about your position. Given the nature of your posts, and your propensity to give scientific descriptions of things.

The only reason I highlighted that these are your positions, and not just brought up the arguments like most people do, is because I couldn't really call them my own positions.

Saying that your epistemological position is empiricism is not a personal assumption. It was based on what you were posting also. Now maybe you do subscribe to things like spirits and othersuch non-corporeal business, and if you do, then I'm sorry. But we both know you don't.

Edit: Also I'm sorry if I offended you, but I do believe that you are just wrong in what you are saying. And for me a person can only be wrong if they contradict themselves. For you to contradict yourself I would have to state what your position is.

Another thing worth mentioning is that you can't expect the constant animosity you display towards religious/theistic people not to be reflected back in their replies.

And tbh, this isn't the first indication that you simply aren't reading or can't understand what's being posted. That post couldn't be construed as a personal attack. In fact, I said something about aruing the status quo, that was by far the most insulting thing I said to you.

Mentioning platonic idealism or chomsky was simply me trying to come to terms with what you were saying.

Ickle Magoo

Materialistic based on a quote by Marie Curie and arguing that morality pre-dates religion. Give me a break.

Response to ninja edit...

and forgive me for presuming your a naturalistic materialistic yada ydaydyaydyayda, but you probably are.

Uh huh, not understanding. Other one ----> bells on. The rule is attack the post not the poster.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wasn't just referring to the crusades, Jackass, I was referring to religion in general, transcending all ages right to present day.

If we are dealing with religion, your case is valid, in that religion is a human institution, with flawed human people. However, what people do in this institution, is very different from what Christianity is. Christianity being the faith founded on the example of Jesus Christ. If we are talking about Christianity your assessment is inaccurate.

However, it seems as if you are backtracking just a little bit. This is what you said:

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Presumably the crusades ended because people didn't agree that murdering another race or religion is a good moral stance and despite christianity declaring killing arabs was god's will in those times, christian countries now think it is wrong to kill anyone, arabs included. So, it appears that peoples morals rewrote the word of god, rather than the other way around - QED.

You used the example of the Crusades to suggest that Christianity as a belief system had changed its morality over time. This isn't actually the case though, as Jesus Himself and the Apostles wouldn't have advocated such a policy. Rather it seems as if men twisted the message (which wasn't available to the mass population in their own language) to justify imperialism, expanding empires, and violence against the other.

It isn't a case that from all time before the Crusades to modernity, that Christians regarded it as correct to kill Arabs, or indeed that it was ever in keeping with Christianity to do this. Indeed, you went as far as to say that the word of God had been re-written.

It's fair to call you out on this one. Particularly as you know full well that secular worldviews have also been the victim of such corruption in the past.

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Materialistic based on a quote by Marie Curie and arguing that morality pre-dates religion. Give me a break.

I didn't mean materialistic in that you valued material things over things like relationships between people, but that "the only thing that exists is matter"

Edit: That edit is fine, the yadayada and use of two words was because there are lots of terms for what I was trying to describe. I can see how you would view that as a personal attack, it hinges mainly on the word materialistic, but I didn't mean it how you interpreted it.

The parts about not understanding are because I genuinely don't believe you understand the implications of "naturalism materialism yadyaydaydy".

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

It's fair to call you out on this one. Particularly as you know full well that secular worldviews have also been the victim of such corruption in the past.

Sorry, Jackass, I should have qualified that as christians - and the top christians of their day at that - rather than christianity in general. The statement regarding not being able to see where religion starts and the corruption of man begins in general terms then and now, and the fact biblical interpretation and religious morals appear to magically alter depending on sect and era, stands.

Zillah

This thread is why I remind myself not to read After Hours.

Opinicus

My name is URL wrote: »

Oh look, it's someone trying to feign logic at the expense of reason

I was just demonstrating the effect of everyone having a different definition of the same words

starbelgrade

What does God mean to me?

Nothing - I've never bothered with the dude & if he exists, he's been gracious enough to never bother me back.

Basically, we live completely seperate lives & it seems to be working out quite well.

Thanks for asking, OP.

raah!

Zillah wrote: »

This thread is why I remind myself not to read After Hours.

It reminds me of why I don't date religious people

Alright

What is God to me? A figment of Your imagination.

Jamiekelly

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you. - George Carlin

qwertplaywert

I go through periods of not believing in a God or God-like figure/energy, and periods where I do believe there is one.
However, even if there was one in the christian sense, I find it laughable anyone would follow a God that seemingly created humans as a test, and created evil. Not really well informed enough to discuss God in non-christian religions.

So basically, God may not be real, but if God is real, I see no real need to follow/worship.

Abrasax

Very long thread. I didn't get a chance to read much of it.

Have you reached a consensus on what God is yet? Anyone care to sum it up for me?

scientific1982

I am my own God.

Ash.J.Williams

Gods morality is what criminals cling onto to justify their actions, the rest of us use good old fashioned natural morality, which has always been there, both for ourselves and our animal cousins.

moonpurple

in reply to OP
God to me??
would be this sort of thing attached,

... its an old celtic pagan way of reflecting on God and God's mystery

Kasabian

I see God in my kids and grandson .

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Yes we can describe their actions as moral, depending on our definitions. But for them to have morals, they must have this conception of good right and ethical, blah blah blah. Many people argue that animals operate via instinct.

Good=helping other members of the pack
Bad=hurting other members of the pack

What's the problem? Why does that have to be any more than instinct?

Peppapig

Google is my god.

Biggins

Peppapig wrote: »

Google is my god.

...Just that the spelling is mixed up with surplus letters and one pinched - but that must be the devil at work eh? :pac:

Sanjuro

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Btw, if you're an atheist and you're struggling to carry a 36" television down four flights of stairs and a christian turns to you and says," Do you want a hand with that mate?" What do you say?

So if you're a christian carrying a 36" television down four flights of stairs and an atheist (how you're supposed to know if someone's a christian or atheist by looking at them is beyond me) offers help do you say 'no thanks. God will help me'? The only thing that seems to serve is to point out the fundamental problem with most religions. That some invisible non-existant overseer will help you when you should really just interact with others, no matter what creed they may or may not have.

biko

I don't have a particular god, and certainly not in any religious sense.

philologos

Sanjuro wrote: »

So if you're a christian carrying a 36" television down four flights of stairs and an atheist (how you're supposed to know if someone's a christian or atheist by looking at them is beyond me) offers help do you say 'no thanks. God will help me'? The only thing that seems to serve is to point out the fundamental problem with most religions. That some invisible non-existant overseer will help you when you should really just interact with others, no matter what creed they may or may not have.

I could see a nicer way of ending that. Allow the other person to help you out, and invite them in for a good old cup of tea and build a friendship!

From a Christian point of view, I think that God would certainly approve of this, and I don't think it would hinder social interaction. That surely wasn't a serious point?

Donkey Oaty

Abrasax wrote: »

Very long thread. I didn't get a chance to read much of it.

Have you reached a consensus on what God is yet? Anyone care to sum it up for me?

After Voltaire: God made us in His own image and most of the posters here are repaying the compliment.

McChubbin

I believe in Zombie Jesus.

My holy trinity is Chuck Norris (The Father), Bruce Campbell (The almighty Son of Chin) and Techno Viking (The Holy Mofo).

Then you have Space Pope and Space Ghost... *rambles*

Biggins

Originally Posted by Abrasax
Very long thread. I didn't get a chance to read much of it.
Have you reached a consensus on what God is yet? Anyone care to sum it up for me?

One more character in another book available at all good book sellers.
The end.

kylith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Good=helping other members of the pack
Bad=hurting other members of the pack

What's the problem? Why does that have to be any more than instinct?

Exactly. In social animals morality is instinctive.