The irrelevance of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Magical Realist, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    it would be easier for you to just admit it is valid to require shared definitions in a legitimate discussion. You could still say it is the theist's fault that they don't share your definitions by default, but let's not pretend my point that there are different uses of the word "real", and also different definitions of god, is not valid.
    it would have been more accurate to say the words are already muddy, and it is those people who won't agree on that fact who keep them that way, whether they are theist or non-theist. The people who insist there is only one way, their way, to understand a particular word are the problem.
    and i am not the light bouncing or absorbing from me either, although it is a commonly used verification of my existence. i just want to be clear as to whether a dream within which god supposedly communicated (if god were real) would be real, or if it would be, like you propose for the reflection, not "really" communication, since there was no other physical manifestation? I am just pointing out here that there is a difference between the terms "rational" and "empirically verifiable".
    actually, in the following sentence you specifically said you wanted "personal experiences", not "arfa's personal experiences", and i had made a description of a common personal experience, i.e. the feeling that god has helped a person in some situation. This paranoia about people trying to lie to you is kind of weird.
    this is quite incorrect. I am waiting for your definition, which i am happy to call a definition, which i will then show has a world religion disagreeing with said definition at least in part. I mean seriously, mormon, hindu, orthodox jew, kabbalist, buddhist, pagan, deist, muslim - the list goes on. So my point about common definition has not been dismantled. And i disagree that the topic is about my personal experience. it is about whether god is relevant. I have had no magical experiences, as far as i know, and my religious experiences could be also called secular experiences, if a person had a mind to do so, so what? It isn't useful to bring up an experience of god "helping" me by giving me two arms and two legs that work, or a mind that works, when anyone can just say, "that is nothing". Bringing the discussion back to the old argument, "if god exists it was god, and if god doesn't exist it wasn't god," is useless. I don't want people to believe what i believe, i am just defending the rationality of religious philosophy, which is disparaged here.
    no i don't actually think you are an idiot, just too stubborn to admit when you have said something inaccurate, such as saying you've dismantled all my ideas, or that "real" has one usable definition in a situation where it could be taken a couple of ways.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    how can an atheist envy the "false knowledge" of the theist?
    so all theists should just drop everything, pick up the begging bowl, become non-human? Maslow's pyramid is only for non-theists? I still don't get it. The line for you in "making a difference" is to become inhuman, nothing less will count. My perspective is that this transformation to non-human is rare, if it ever even happens at all.
    if god is not real, as any non-theist would say, then the claims are empty and are just people talking. So you are basically saying anyone talking about god is causing distress to the people who think the person is wrong.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I mean that there appears to be a regularity to the way atheists react to theists, similar to natural laws.

    So, for example, when someone goes into public and talks on the topic of God, speaking with an air of great confidence, atheists will point out that there are other people who do that too, and that they say different things.
    Or when someone goes into public and talks on the topic of God, first speaking with great certainty, but then wavers and says "it's all a matter of faith" or that "we are all seekers," the atheists respond with disdain.
    Etc.

    There are discernible patterns in theist-atheist interactions, and if God exists, then it can only be that God designed those patterns.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Who said anything about the knowledge of theists being false??


    You're saying that.


    Maslow's pyramid? Really? One of the most misleading, abusive constructs out there in the world of psychology? You want to adhere to it?


    Your notions of "human" are too narrow.


    Not any. Some do, some don't.


    No. It's you who is saying that. And I think you are actually an atheist theist.
     
  8. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    wouldn't all atheists say the Jews claim to be god's chosen people, which you used as an example, is false? I don't understand this non-theist who believes spiritual claims thing.
    of course forcing everyone into the same exact pyramid is unfair, and I would agree if you said people should be able to choose which "needs" they personally need, but however you disagree with the particulars of the pyramid, the point was just that theists need food and other base level things all of us can agree humans need, and all cannot necessarily become someone who enjoys prison camp as you suggested theists should be able to.
    asking all theists to enjoy prison camp is lacking understanding of humanity. Unless of course you are going to insist that most theists just aren't real theists anyway. I am not saying that is wrong, just useless for most of us. This is a problem with fundies anyway, they make all these people sit around wondering whether they are real believers, by presenting a, usually, false idea of their own behavior and character. The arena for those falsehoods seeming to have been necessitated by ideas similar to yours. Things are changing though, so greedy preachers who show their own greed are being followed en masse, and nobody has a problem that their behavior is not better than normal, so perhaps the answer is not to be real either, since that seems to be a problem as well.
    I am confused as to which type of non-theist would say god is real.
    i am sure many fundamentalists would agree with you, since I don't believe properly for them either. I disagree. I even have no problem thinking god is an actual being, even though that is certainly not a requirement for theists - the fact that I allow for other possibilities simply means I don't believe I can perceive all that I feel is necessary to take a fundamentalist's stance, hence my distrust of fundamentalism. If you want to call me agnostic, I am also agnostic on a thousand things people often say are obviously known, such as whether or not my mother went beyond mere instinctual behavior when she got up to work to put food on the table, an unknown which has never stopped me from believing she loves me. Don't blame me for having a psychology that withholds judgement as to the exact nature of all reality. Whatever you may think of my ideology, epistemology, etc., I am certainly not an atheist.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Not believes, but takes seriously, seriously considers the implications.
    It's a hypothetical, but it's enough.


    It's you who is talking about enjoying prison camp.


    Because that appears to be the conclusion.


    Why?


    No. I am simply drawing conclusions from the basic definition of "God."


    First, there is the rejected aspiring theist.

    Secondly, you said "if god is not real, as any non-theist would say, then the claims are empty and are just people talking."

    There are also non-theists who make no claim as to God's existence or non-existence. I am such a non-theist. Such non-theists do not declare the claims of theists to be "empty and are just people talking."


    My stance has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Like I said, I only work from basic definitions.


    I just don't see why you call yourself a theist then.

    Going by your criteria, even I could pass as a theist! That's bizarre.


    I said I thought you were an atheist theist. Meaning, a theist with little regard for or little knowledge of God. Yes, tehcnically, that is a contradiction in terms.
     
  10. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    people should accept some responsibility for discernment, instead of blaming the person with an imperfect message. Unless you are going to be fideistic, in which case never mind, but you aren't going to be fideistic, so accept some responsibility for discernment.
    ok you said they shouldn't have a problem with prison camp, so I should have said it is not reasonable to expect any type of human to "not have a problem" with prison camp.
    i am just saying most people are not going to be exceptionally anything. They are going to be normal people, with faults and problems. I think people are changed by their belief, or by some metaphysical power, but a bird isn't going to evolve into a kangaroo. I think it would be better for people to realize they aren't going to have a magic god wand to wave, so they can get used to the idea that doing the right thing is sometimes difficult, especially for people who are fairly selfish, and it is their responsibility to do right. This would take care of Nietzsche's legitimate and primary problem with religion. Also they need to understand that being exceptional is a lot of work, rather than thinking someone is going to convert them into perfect beings, and then crying to god, why don't YOU make me better, which is what I certainly did back in my fundamentalist days.
    I don't know how there is a rejected theist, unless they are just looking for the kind of theism most people either don't get or don't keep. It is like saying, "I want a mystical experience", when you know most of the mystics lived in caves and monasteries, but you don't go to the monastery or cave for the requisite years, and then saying, "I don't believe because I didn't have a mystical experience." I personally don't expect a mystical experience, not because I think those mystics are all liars and lunatics, but because I don't move to a cave. If all I get are flashes of what I believe is clarity, instead of some flood, I don't need to blame anyone but myself.
    by your rationale I suppose I should stop saying my mother loves me too!
    i don't think someone who makes "no claim", as you have said above, can be called a theist.
    I have plenty of regard. Although I don't have any blinding light experiences, or booming voices to talk about, I believe I have a pretty fair idea of what god is not, and believe some things about what god is, and I would rather have a very little knowledge of god than know a ton about god that doesn't make sense. If I were less selective I might be able to say I have tons of "knowledge" of god.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If we do that, however, the proposed absolute authority of the theist crumbles. And theists typically don't like that.

    Moreover - sure, we can discern, and get selective about which theists we are going to believe for what - but doing so implies that we are holding to a particular theistic outlook already (namely one that claims at least that God isn't going to condemn us to hell if we don't submit to everyone who claims to be talking on behalf of God).

    IOW, being selective, discerning about what theists say already makes us theists!!

    This is an implication that seems to come up only in the case of talking about God and no other topic, given that God is defined as the One Being that is the Source of All Others, where not a blade of grass moves without God's will etc.

    (I suspect some atheists intuitively know this, this is why they are so adamant on keeping discussion with theists in such simplistic, non-discerning terms).


    My point is simply that as long as theists want absolute submission from non-theists, presenting themselves as the only link that non-theists have to God, non-theists can demand nothing less than perfection from theists.

    Sure, many theists are all too human, though: they want absolute submission, but they don't want to prove they're worth it. So typical.

    The question is whether theists would be willing to accept an un-divination of their status, or whether they would, like some, reply with kicking and pissing.

    And again, like I said: By discerning and being selective about which theists we are going to believe for what - implies that we are holding to a particular theistic outlook already, and so being selective, discerning about what theists say already makes us theists.


    I said "rejected aspiring theist."


    I'm talking about people who are rejected by theistic organizations. There's plenty of such people.
    As long as the theistic organization is to be seen as holding the keys to God's heart, being rejected by said organization amounts to being rejected by God.

    (Then there are also those who were directly rejected by God. But I can think only of one Biblical example, namely Lucifer, and a fictional one, Loki.)


    ?

    But they may be doing a number of other things that are specifically theistic - like chant a particular mantra, pray, express gratitude.


    Well, I don't see it. Doesn't mean that you don't have it; maybe you do, but you're not showing it to me. Or maybe I'm just too blind.

    In Buddhism, they have the concept of "love for the Dharma." It's about appreciating that one has come in contact with the Buddha's teachings, that one can practice accordingly. And if one sticks around Buddhists long enough, one can see who has love for the Dharma and who doesn't. It's that distinctive heart-quality of appreciation for the path.

    I think similar applies about belief in God. Most theists I know are quite cold and cerebral, occasionally angry and bitter about their theism.
     
  12. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Sounds like a problem. Unless there is, as I have suggested, a value in a person being a theist who questions the validity of human authorities.
    in the west demand for absolute submission is specifically looked at as a sign of abuse.
    That is a problem. Seeing theistic organizations that way, I mean.
    I pointed out that your classifications of my lack of belief in the knowability of certain things would require me to drop my claim of my mother's choices being more than instinct along with my claim of belief in god, if some lack of proof were not acceptable. Proof of a higher morality than instinct that science does not provide in my mother's case, although most of the empiricists fail to get the connections between this type of ambiguity and religious ambiguity.

    I am certainly not the best example of this phenomenon among the people I have known.
    i think life is difficult for a lot of people. And because they aren't perfect there is guilt, and because they have external difficulties there is blame and anger. Maybe we all need a better idea of how people change when they become religious, or a more thoroughly diverse model.
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And that's an understatement!

    That one can end up being a theist by inference, simply as one applies discernment to what people who claim to be talking about "God" say - that's big! Really big.


    Well, then there is also the cultural difference. For us, it may be enough to say something once and we are prone to be straightforward.
    In other cultures, they use strong words, but some are meant to be "for effect" and are understood as such. Hence the typical culture clashes when a typical Westerner takes at face value what an Easterner said for effect or in a veiled manner. They might be perfectly okay with keeping up appearances to some extent, while we have little or no scope for them. (Not that this doesn't happen among Westerners themselves too, although we tend to ascribe that then to psychopathology.)

    I bet some of the apparent submission that Hindus show to their authority figures is a sham and they all know it.


    But on principle, it might not be impossible for a theistic organization to have such authority.


    Probably developing insight and a different attitude to and reason for talking about religion too.
     
  14. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    I tend to view humanity as insignificant. That's because in the larger scheme of intergalactic existence we don't even matter. Also we have absolutely no power to change anything which goes on in nature anyway.

    Perhaps humanity is just a small and insignificant species projecting their own mental idolatries onto the vast cosmos but we could actually be wiped from existence at any moment.

    It's possible that the majority of undiscerning humanity are creatures with the same significance as insects and plants in a much greater struggle between greater cosmic forces which, due to humanity's small, visionless and unimportant nature, it does not recognize.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the question posed. Please answer the question.
     
  16. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    The point was that people call dogs loyal, they are using the same process, deciding which internal feelings are sensible and nonsense. They feel there is something special about the dog, they don't know exactly how it is that a dog should be attributed morals, and most would say it is something different than human morals anyway. They make some leap of faith to decide for themselves what to call the dog behavior.
    Or alternatively they shut it down and say, dog=instinct and nothing unknown about it, don't pretend they are moral. That is fine, except people are picking willy nilly what is to be approached with this type of "dog loyalty" faith and what is not, and then trying to impose their categories on others. So they say "dog morality" is ok, but "inspired by god" is not ok. Even ecstatic experiences that may change one person's life can be called psychotic by another, although that one person is otherwise mentally healthy. Essentially to answer your question, we DON'T "know" whether someone has heard the voice of god or whatever, but we don't "know" a lot of other things that we keep struggling with, or are even using as common truisms.
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Why don't you just answer the question instead of talking about dogs that has nothing to do with the question, which I can repeat for you...

    How would you or anyone else know the difference between feelings in that one was simply a natural bodily function and another the cause of a god?
     
  18. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    And I shall repeat for you -

    P.s. What an atheist may say about dogs or love has everything to do with the question.
     
  19. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Because indigestion doesn't cause black cloaked entities to show up in my room. Also,God and other spiritual communicators identify themselves.
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Other, wholly natural bodily functions can, however, produce such an effect. You wouldn't be the first person to hallucinate.
     
  21. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I was one of several people who saw the entity; did we all hallucinate? Are you a hallucination? I can't see you therefore I doubt your existence.
     
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Like a "grim reaper" figure?
     
  23. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Yes, very similar only this figure had a black velvety mask.
     

Share This Page