I wasn't taking issue with it, I was drawing people's attention back to it. The point was that a great deal of the subsequent discussion in this thread either has little relevance to the ostensible subject of the thread or else suggests that the concept of "G/god" isn't all that relevant.
Not at all. You just seem to be unaware of just how broad the
concept of god is (which I already explained and you failed to quote).
Syne said:
Whether you wish to view this as the higher self of AA, the non-theistic "symbol of human values and aspirations", or the Abrahamic God makes no real difference. This only illustrates how available/accessible the concept of god is to a wide variety of people.
Even with Wynn's example of third-person literature, the author is the ultimate creator and ideal observer (omniscient), both traits typically associated with a
concept of god. While some of the things discussed in this thread may not be as clearly indicative of a
concept of god, like a higher-self or a surveillance-state, these do display those same traits (albeit perhaps to a lessor degree, with an associated lessor utility*).
* For example, karma or a higher-self may only be aspirational without directly providing the objective perspective associated with a concept of god. This does illustrate the lessor utility to the development of conscience of merely aspiring to some human realizable ideal, rather than internalizing an objective perspective.
But I have not posited that the concept of god need have no correspondence.
You've written in multiple posts that you aren't assuming that a G/god exists. For example, "Who said it was necessarily monotheist, or theist at all considering I specifically assumed a god does not exist?" That suggests that you have assumed that no supernatural being exists in reality that corresponds to the concept 'G/god'.
If it doesn't matter whether or not somebody believes in the actual existence of whatever corresponds to this hypothetical 'G/god' concept, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not somebody is an atheist. You even claim that you have taken an atheist stance yourself.
Just because it is assumed that "no supernatural being exists in reality that corresponds to the concept 'G/god'" does not mean that "nothing corresponds to it" (which you quote my answer to below).
I have assumed an agnostic stance, for the sake of argument. Atheists seem particularly unfamiliar with those traits of a
concept of god that are useful in developing conscience. As Magical Realist's thread that inspired this one illustrates, atheists seem to typically have a very rudimentary and child-like notion of god. A notion they only deem worth understanding to the extent that it lends fuel to the fire of arguing theists, which is highly unlikely to be a notion that they can internalize in any way.
This may illustrate the difference between an atheist and a non-theist. And Capracus is a prime example, as he rejects anything even remotely conflicting with his worldview, while a Buddhist can be both non-theist and religious or a deist theist but non-religious.
BTW, you seem to have completely ignored my argument about deism. Is it just too inconvenient to your argument that a theist cannot be non-religious?
Quite the opposite, as the perspective defined by the concept of god should have a strong correspondence to conscience, to further develop conscience.
Right. You seem to be arguing that even if 'G/god' doesn't exist in reality, and even if people don't believe that "he" does, you still believe that possession of the concept of 'G/god' is nevertheless necessary for the full and proper development of conscience.
The obvious counterexamples to that idea are the non-theistic philosophies and religions out there, and all the people who aren't theists. That's where the topic of Buddhism originally entered into this discussion, I guess. Compared to adherents of theistic religions, adherents of Buddhism don't seem to be at any disadvantage in the conscience development department. That fact constitutes empirical evidence against the thesis that the concept of 'G/god' is somehow necessary for proper conscience development.
I was the one who introduced the topic of Buddhism in this thread, and I have already said that karma could be useful, as it does exemplify a sort of omniscience. Also, Buddhism espouses an objective morality that is not as subject to self-justification. Even your average Christian (who does believe in a god) may not have the abstract thinking skills to internalize that perspective, but an objective morality upheld by their social peers will always have some outward effect (just as the law and other human institutions do).
Moral/ethical social display is not a one-for-one indicator of conscience. As someone has rightfully pointed out, even psychopaths appear normal. So it seems you have once again conflated conscience with the social regulation of morality.
Whether an atheist is capable of utilizing the concept of god to further refine conscience, they still live in societies which largely know its value. When ~80% of the population believes in a god, it would be a very obtuse atheist who denies that it effects their life...hence relevant.
You certainly seem to be using that kind of argument in the case of the atheists. But even if by chance it was true, it still doesn't seem to matter whether or not somebody is an atheist in your theory, it doesn't matter whether they actually believe in the existence of 'G/god'. All that seems to matter is that they are aware of the concept. (Whatever that is.)
By chance? If it were not true that the concept of god was relevant to atheists, we would not have the "New Atheists" and the like so vocally opposing theism. People do not tend to so vehemently fight the irrelevant.
Who said they only need be "aware of the concept"? You are certainly aware of the
general concept, but your confusion about what it entails stems from your refusal to honestly entertain the notion enough to understand it. This is demonstrated in the fact that you keep insisting on the actual belief in a god or a specific conception of "God" well after I have cleared this up (hence the repetition in this thread).
I have said, as well as given examples and links, that its primary attribute, here, is omniscience.
Not every 'god' concept includes the attribute of omniscience. I don't think that most of the ancients thought of their gods as omniscient. Their gods often worked at cross-purposes in their dealings with humans and even tricked and deceived each other.
Omniscience is one of the
common attributes among the many conceptions of god. But yes, the Greek pantheon was merely aspirational. But then we might surmise that there is a reason such conceptions have not continued, in strength, to present day, as they did not serve social cooperation as well. After all, the soap opera of gods fighting each other is hardly a useful social example, and much more of a brute force ideal. Hardly exemplary of conscience.
But I have not said all conceptions are equally useful.
Karma is an ancient Indian ethical theory, sure enough, but it doesn't have anything to do with 'G/gods' or with omniscience. It's basically an ancient idea of causation in which physical and ethical causation weren't distinguished. In modern ethical terms, karma theories are probably most akin to consequentialism, I guess, to the idea that whether particular actions are right or wrong right now is a function of their future consequences.
Again, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the person performing the action possesses a concept of an omniscient 'G/god'.
If you cannot escape the consequences of your actions, then karma is effectively omniscient. There is no "if I get caught" about it. And I have already explained my thoughts on Buddhism above.