What is God to you?

philologos

I'm expressing that your point is effectively bunk, that's all

Further proof, that "I don't listen" really means, "I don't accept your view on a given issue".

Let's not clog up the thread with disagreements about your expectations of human epistemology in respect to what you say though!

caseyann

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So the people without faith giving their opinion on this thread are forcing their opinion on others and the people with faith giving their opinion on this thread are leaving others alone

No telling people who believe in it and find comfort in it should be argued down and told just because you dont believe that its not real.
It was whats god to you thread.If people write he is nothing and what ever if someone who believes comes in and says you are wrong and try force it on them is also wrong.And vice versa.Is what i am saying.Same as there is no point in me trying to tell you there is a god,no point in you telling me there isnt.

Sam Vimes

caseyann wrote: »

No telling people who believe in it and find comfort in it should be argued down and told just because you dont believe that its not real.
It was whats god to you thread.If people write he is nothing and what ever if someone who believes comes in and says you are wrong and try force it on them is also wrong.And vice versa.Is what i am saying.Same as there is no point in me trying to tell you there is a god,no point in you telling me there isnt.

Bear in mind that this thread started with someone who couldn't understand the concept that a non-believer would help someone carry a heavy tv. If religious people kept their religion to themselves it would never even come up in conversation

Giselle

caseyann wrote: »

No telling people who believe in it and find comfort in it should be argued down and told just because you dont believe that its not real.
It was whats god to you thread.If people write he is nothing and what ever if someone who believes comes in and says you are wrong and try force it on them is also wrong.And vice versa.Is what i am saying.Same as there is no point in me trying to tell you there is a god,no point in you telling me there isnt.

Yeah, but no but yeah.:)

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I missed them, could you summarise?

ok, I'll just reply here first

Good and bad are what we call these things. There need to be no confusion except where people like to think that there's something transcendent or other worldly about it. For the purpose of this thread let's define them as "helping others and avoiding harming them". Is that an acceptable definition to you?

Not really, but it doesn't matter. Ok, so you have defined them. Now, forgive me for this assumption, but things like scientific materialism combined with atheism lead to moral relativism don't they? Doesn't this mean we can define them how we want?

We've already established inanimate things can't define things. The reason religious people can argue for an innate morality is because of the mind of a god defining them.

Do you think that doing good, ie helping other members of your community and avoiding harming them, is not evolutionarily advantageous?

I would argue that going around harming others whenever you feel like it is not evolutionarily advantageous.

I'll quote other posts for this.

No dopamine doesn't define what's good and bad. What defines these things is whether or not they harm others, our brains are wired to release dopamine (or whatever) when we cause suffering. We know what causes suffering because because we know what causes ourselves to suffer.

Define is a verb. The language you use is vitally important to many philosophical problems.

If someone scratches me it hurts. That defines in my brain and the brain of an animal that scratching causes suffering and so they don't do it to others. That's all that's required. We don't have to come into the world with a pre-defined list of things that are good and bad, I don't have to be born with the knowledge that scratching hurts, we learn that as we go along by finding out what causes suffering.

A breif summary of why this is not morality. Now, it's not necessary to have the religious conception of innate morality for this to be still wrong. We can take like an existential definition in that you can choose your own right and wrong (if that's acceptable for existentialists, I know they choose meaning, but not about that, but it doesn't matter). And an added thing is, we'll consider a dog. And we'll compare a dog to a relativist/existentialist, and maybe some others to incorperate your views.

Existentialist: I wish to maximise such and such by not suffering, so I'll say suffering is bad. So to me suffering is bad, it's bad for dogs to suffer as well, by my reasoning (imagine he said something about dogs). This does not mean that actions of dogs which seek to avoid suffering suggest dogs posses an idea of what I have just said. They are probably just looking for chemicals.

Dog: I'm a dog so I can't define things, nor apply the words good or bad to things. Whether or not dogs are capable of higher thought is a separate and ridiculous matter.

Morality requires the differentiation between right and wrong, which requires definitions of right and wrong, which generally are arbitrary. Definitinos require language and thought.

I wrote a big thing then deleted it so I have to go work and don't have time to quote things. But you can read them yourself. Cash money.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If religious people kept their religion to themselves it would never even come up in conversation

Is it not good that it comes up in conversation rather than being suppressed and so on?

Biggins

I would just like to post a point of order: just because something is not being talked about, that don't mean it is automatically being supressed either!

raah!

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, I maintain atheistic moral systems are mostly (moral systems of atheistic religions or some sort of love cults excluded) inferior to religioiusly or theistically based ones. And people with moral systems based on empathy are as good as heroin addicts (by their definition of good).

Moral action does not always imply morality also, that has been rigorously proved. But that was unneccesary, actions cannot be called "moral" till there is a definition of what is good or bad there. These definitions generally have to be arbitrary, unless based on another system of belief such as religion. So naturally someone whose morals can be explained has a superior position that someone who can respond only with tautolgies.

If people spend a little less time proselytizing and more time looking at the contradictions in their positions... then their positions would be less ridiculous. Which they are.

Ok actually, here's a nice summary.

Here is the original contention

Are people saying that they do not believe there are arguments against an atheistic moral system? Because there are, and I've never seen them properly addressed or rebutted by anything other than "I'm an atheist and I'm very nice".

There's no need to disregard something completely just because it's coming from someone who you see as being on the opposite side of an argument to you.

After that people plopped down some unjustified ideas of right and wrong, and the thread went on from there

caseyann

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Bear in mind that this thread started with someone who couldn't understand the concept that a non-believer would help someone carry a heavy tv. If religious people kept their religion to themselves it would never even come up in conversation

lol i missed that part someone said that

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Bear in mind that this thread started with someone who couldn't understand the concept that a non-believer would help someone carry a heavy tv. If religious people kept their religion to themselves it would never even come up in conversation

The thread is about what the word 'God' means to people in their own minds, and yet it's descended into the old debate about the meaning applied to it by theologians.

Whether or not the OP mentioned carrying a TV, there'd be the usual suspects in here pontificating

Biggins

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread is about what the word 'God' means to people in their own minds, and yet it's descended into the old debate about the meaning applied to it by theologians.

Heavy stuff indeed for AH!

Who says we are just a lightweight section and are open to be mocked! :pac:
Some serious heavy brains in here too ya know - myself excluded, I'm just an ass!

raah!

In fairness url, I agree with you. For most words having your own definition is ridiculous, but the idea of god can be considered a compound idea, so you can add and stich parts as you like, and it isn't ridiculous. This is more a failing of language. Lots of people do that too, like deists and theists. It probably depends on the capitalisation though.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

ok, I'll just reply here first


Not really, but it doesn't matter. Ok, so you have defined them. Now, forgive me for this assumption, but things like scientific materialism combined with atheism lead to moral relativism don't they? Doesn't this mean we can define them how we want?

No actually you can't. If we as a society define that killing is no more wrong than going to the shop to buy some milk two problems are created:

1. We run the risk of ourselves and our loved ones being killed
2. Our society will die very very quickly.

A certain level of killing can be tolerated in a society but a society that defines killing as no different to buying milk will not survive. Killing is objectively bad.

The same can be said of slavery. Someone who wants their society to accept the position that there is nothing wrong with slavery puts themselves and their family at serious risk of being enslaved themselves. This is totally unacceptable, it is objectively bad. Certain things are universally undesirable and so creating a society where these practices are thought of as no different to buying milk is universally unacceptable.


What human beings can do however and what they do all to often is they define an out-group that is somehow different to themselves so that they can apply different rules to this other group. Enslaving a white person is wrong but not a black person. Killing an Irish person is wrong but not an English person. Banning men from voting is wrong but not women. Even the most murderous societies in history still treated their families and communities well because a society that does not treat each other well will die.

raah! wrote: »

We've already established inanimate things can't define things. The reason religious people can argue for an innate morality is because of the mind of a god defining them.

I'll quote other posts for this.


Defining is a verb. The language you use is vitally important to many philosophical problems.


A breif summary of why this is not morality. Now, it's not necessary to have the religious conception of innate morality for this to be still wrong. We can take like an existential definition in that you can choose your own right and wrong (if that's acceptable for existentialists, I know they choose meaning, but not about that, but it doesn't matter). And an added thing is, we'll consider a dog. And we'll compare a dog to a relativist/existentialist, and maybe some others to incorperate your views.

Existentialist: I wish to maximise such and such by not suffering, so I'll say suffering is bad. So to me suffering is bad, it's bad for dogs to suffer as well, by my reasoning (imagine he said something about dogs). This does not mean that actions of dogs which seek to avoid suffering suggest dogs posses an idea of what I have just said. They are probably just looking for chemicals.

Actually inanimate things can define things. It's all evolution baby. A good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

raah! wrote: »

Dog: I'm a dog so I can't define things, nor apply the words good or bad to things. Whether or not dogs are capable of higher thought is a separate and ridiculous matter.

Morality requires the differentiation between right and wrong, which requires definitions of right and wrong, which generally are arbitrary. Definitinos require language and thought.

A dog can differentiate a lick from a bite because one feels good and the other hurts. What difference does it make if he applies the labels right and wrong to these actions rather than simply "do" and "don't do"?

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread is about what the word 'God' means to people in their own minds, and yet it's descended into the old debate about the meaning applied to it by theologians.

Whether or not the OP mentioned carrying a TV, there'd be the usual suspects in here pontificating

Did you even read the OP?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

So, anyway, where does everyone else see God? Would be particularly interested to hear from the atheists.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it not good that it comes up in conversation rather than being suppressed and so on?

Biggins wrote: »

I would just like to post a point of order: just because something is not being talked about, that don't mean it is automatically being supressed either!

This

cintaxox

I cannot describe in any words what God is to me but i have 100% faith in him. Just because you cant see him doesn't mean he is not their.

My name is URL

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Did you even read the OP?

Yes I did. Maybe it's you that's understanding it in a totally inflexible and dogmatic way

caseyann

cintaxox wrote: »

I cannot describe in any words what God is to me but i have 100% faith in him. Just because you cant see him doesn't mean he is not their.

Run very fast and dont look back at this thread now ever again

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread is about what the word 'God' means to people in their own minds, and yet it's descended into the old debate about the meaning applied to it by theologians.

Whether or not the OP mentioned carrying a TV, there'd be the usual suspects in here pontificating

This is true but then the same points would still be being made whether or not they specifically mentioned not helping to carry a tv as an example of the evil of non-christians

Biggins

caseyann wrote: »

Run very fast and dont look back at this thread now ever again

:pac:

Sam Vimes

caseyann wrote: »

lol i missed that part someone said that

Unfortunately so

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true but then the same points would still be being made whether or not they specifically mentioned not helping to carry a tv as an example of the evil of non-christians

I guess it was doomed from the start!

Biggins

My name is URL wrote: »

I guess it was doomed from the start!

Ya had to guess?

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

I guess it was doomed from the start!

Aren't they all

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

Yes I did. Maybe it's you that's understanding it in a totally inflexible and dogmatic way

Yeah, that'll be it. Moaning that the people the OP specified they were aiming the thread at have dared to comment - that's me being inflexible and dogmatic, huh-huh. Good grief.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No actually you can't. If we as a society define that killing is no more wrong than going to the shop to buy some milk two problems are created:

1. We run the risk of ourselves and our loved one being killed
2. Our society will die very very quickly.

A certain level of killing can be tolerated in a society but a society that defines killing as no different to buying milk will not survive. Killing is objectively bad.

As an idividual I can do what I want, as long as I'm not caught. It's especially easy these days when there are big cities and the like. I reccommend the republic for a hearty discussion of whether it is better to be good or bad.

Ok. Well you said objectively bad. No, something being a subjective standard doesn't make it objective, it makes it subjective and agreed upon.

The same can be said of slavery. Someone who wants their society to accept the position that there is nothing wrong with slavery puts themselves and their family at serious risk of being enslaved themselves. This is totally unacceptable, it is objectively bad. Certain things are universally undesirable and so creating a society where these practices are thought of as no different to buying milk is universally unacceptable.

There are arguments for slavery, to think there aren't is silly. Lots of people are capitalists, lots of people like money. Slavery is nice cheap labour.

What human beings can do however and what they do all to often is they define an out-group that is somehow different to themselves so that they can apply different rules to this other group. Enslaving a white person is wrong but not a black person. Killing an Irish person is wrong but not an English person. Banning men from voting is wrong but not women. Even the most murderous societies in history still treated their families and communities well because a society that does not treat each other well will die.

Yes, that's an interesting thing. Beowolf is a good thing to read if you wish to study that. Also an example can be how people are treating religious people these days. While they are not killing them, they are treating them as the wrong from which to derive their right.

Actually inanimate things can define things. It's all evolution baby. A good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Look up the word define.

A dog can differentiate a lick from a bite because one feels good and the other hurts. What difference does it make if he applies the labels right and wrong to these actions rather than simply "do" and "don't do"?

The difference is the applicability of the word morality to these actions.


What you need to accept, is that while we can base our definitions of good and bad on things, in most cases it's just arbitrary. How many times have you said "rape is objectively wrong because it is" ? Seeing that you like to make arguments from evolution, say we can rape a woman in the wildernes and scare her so that she doesn't tell society at large. Instant gene propogation, and if we are arguing form evoltution, good gene propogation.

I've read people saying this, relativist liberals, claiming objective knowledge of right and wrong. All I can say is address your own position, and accept that your definitions of good and bad are no more arbitrary than someones definition of God.

This is a problem of new atheism which vexes me quite a bit. Completely glossing over a major problem to this position, that's what they do, they ignore it.

I thin it was nietzche who said that nihilism was the biggest problem to the 20th centuary. Have people just forgotten or ignored it?

MagicMarker

cintaxox wrote: »

I cannot describe in any words what God is to me but i have 100% faith in him. Just because you cant see him doesn't mean he is not their.

Which God is that now?

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

As an idividual I can do what I want, as long as I'm not caught. It's especially easy these days when there are big cities and the like. I reccommend the republic for a hearty discussion of whether it is better to be good or bad.

Ok. Well you said objectively bad. No, something being a subjective standard doesn't make it objective, it makes it subjective and agreed upon.

That a society that sees nothing wrong with killing will die is not something "subjective and agreed upon", it's something that will happen, objectively. The fact that the people in this now dead society did not agree with me is irrelevant. They're wrong because they're dead. The non-existence of a god does not change the nature of the world. Stabbing someone in the head will kill them whether our society agrees or not. And everyone stabbing everyone else in the head because they've agreed that there's nothing wrong with it doesn't make them any less dead.

raah! wrote: »

There are arguments for slavery, to think there aren't is silly. Lots of people are capitalists, lots of people like money. Slavery is nice cheap labour.

Yes they are unfortunately arguments for slavery, ones that people have used all too often despite our supposed god given morality.

raah! wrote: »

Look up the word define.


The difference is the applicability of the word morality to these actions.


What you need to accept, is that while we can base our definitions of good and bad on things, in most cases it's just arbitrary. How many times have you said "rape is objectively wrong because it is" ? Seeing that you like to make arguments from evolution, say we can rape a woman in the wildernes and scare her so that she doesn't tell society at large. Instant gene propogation, and if we are arguing form evoltution, good gene propogation.

I've read people reading this, relativist liberals, claiming objective knowledge of right and wrong. All I can say is address your own position, and accept that your definitions of good and bad are no more arbitrary than someones definition of God.

This is a problem of new atheism which vexes me quite a bit. Completely glossing over a major problem to this position, that's what they do, they ignore it.

I thin it was nietzche who said that nihilism was the biggest problem to the 20th centuary. Have people just forgotten or ignored it?

I don't think the problem is that I need to look up the word define, it's that you need to realise that there is no need for anything to be defined in the way you mean in order for "harmful" to be differentiated from "helpful". So I'll ask again: A dog can differentiate a lick from a bite because one feels good and the other hurts. What difference does it make if he applies the labels right and wrong to these actions rather than simply "do" and "don't do"?

No they are not "defining" anything in the way you mean because there is no higher thought involved but what is the actual difference to the end result?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That a society that sees nothing wrong with killing will die is not something "subjective and agreed upon", it's something that will happen, objectively. The fact that the people in this now dead society did not agree with me is irrelevant. They're wrong because they're dead. The non-existence of a god does not change the nature of the world. Stabbing someone in the head will kill them whether our society agrees or not. And everyone stabbing everyone else in the head because they've agreed that there's nothing wrong with it doesn't make them any less dead.

Anywhere the words good or bad are applied without being previously defined cannot be described as an objective situation. You really just seem to be failing to grasp the argument. Being an atheist has little to do with it yes. I'm saying arbitrary and accepted definitions of good and bad are necessary before entering into any moral discussion.

The advantage religious people have is that these definitions are not immediately arbitrary.

Yes they are unfortunately argument for slavery, ones that people have used all too often despite our supposed god given morality.

Comments like that are irrelevant. Also the term unfortunate also depends on your definitions of good and bad.

I don't think the problem is that I need to look up the word define, it's that you need to realise that there is no need for anything to be defined in the way you mean in order for "harmful" to be differentiate from "harmless". So I'll ask again: A dog can differentiate a lick from a bite because one feels good and the other hurts. What difference does it make if he applies the labels right and wrong to these actions rather than simply "do" and "don't do"?

No they are not "defining" anything in the way you mean but what is the actual difference to the end result?

The difference is that it cannot be described as morality, and that is what this discussion was about. You appear to have lost track of that however.

If you read the first post where i outline why I think empathy based morality is weaker than a reason based morality, you'll see the actual difference to the end result. (Edit: this is not so much a pragmatic difference as it is a difference in the strength of the positions, and self contradictions inherent in an undefined system when someone criticises rape or heroin use)

It's true, one doesn't need morality to act morally. However , some people are able to think about their actions and act based on reason. It is these people who need strict rules of good and bad.

I have already made arguments about this, and quoted them for you.

This wouldn't be a problem for teh new atheists if they weren't so set on proselytizing, and presenting them self as virtuous champions of reason and science while presenting religious people as horrible biggoted demons.

MagicMarker

cintaxox wrote: »

Just god i dont believe their is more than one. Im not someone who goes to mass every sunday. Im just a average person in my twenty's who has a laugh and goes out with my friend at the weekend.

Well there are millions of people who believe in a different God, why are they wrong and you're right?