The most logical belief

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Whatever else there may be out there in the universe - it is not a god. It does not demand recognition - it does not interfere - it is simply something beyond our comprehension.

You are saying it is not a god because it des not do this?
If it suddenly did demand recognition, it did interfere etc, would you the call it a god?
I don't think it's actions can simply 'change' what it is and give it a different name.

Scofflaw

I hate to interrupt the general chorus of agreement...but you all knew that I would.

First, I have to sustain Tar.Aldarion's objection to The Atheist's summary. If such a vast and incomprehensible being were suddenly to interfere with humanity and/or demand worship, can that somehow change its nature?

Second, and I'm sure, irritatingly for Wicknight, I still cannot quite agree with his position, which to me seems far too prescriptive and "physical". I find the idea emotionally acceptable, and it absolutely represents my "gut feeling" on the matter - that there are no gods, and that the very concept is one dreamed up by adults "afraid to face the Universe with no better backing than their own resources" (to quote James Branch Cabell).

It remains intellectually impossible, however, to dismiss all god(s) out of hand in this way, although it is easy enough to dismiss the Christian God as described, since there are simply too many internal contradictions. Nevertheless, it remains impossible to simply dispose of all possible god(s) in the manner he suggests.

I am willing to entertain the notion that the God of (for example) wolfsbane exists - but I do not consider him worshippable, and therefore do not consider him a God. To wolfsbane, on the other hand, he is a God, and therefore there are such things as Gods, at least metaphysically - a bit like saying that there is a such a thing as Communism, even if there are no Communists. I do not know whether they have any physical existence, or any existence to the unbeliever.

I am sure this will prompt the point about the stapler again, but, if you were genuinely disposed to worship your stapler, it certainly would be a God - the type called a fetish.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You are saying it is not a god because it des not do this?
If it suddenly did demand recognition, it did interfere etc, would you the call it a god?

Firstly I'd probably call it a chancer for looking for demanding recognition for creating the broken world we live in. But sure, I'd have to concur that this would fit my notion of a god. Coincidentally because it has suddenly taken on some of humanities less admirable traits. Pride, ego, wrath. Be it the First Commandment, or demanding virgins be thrown into volcanos.

Scofflaw wrote:

If such a vast and incomprehensible being were suddenly to interfere with humanity and/or demand worship, can that somehow change its nature?

I'm not sure I get the question, but it's nature has changed because it suddenly fits the profile of the human god concept.

Let me put it another way - I don't believe "god" to be a position waiting to be filled. We've had enough gods - lets open our minds to another concept.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Firstly I'd probably call it a chancer for looking for demanding recognition for creating the broken world we live in. But sure, I'd have to concur that this would fit my notion of a god. Coincidentally because it has suddenly taken on some of humanities less admirable traits. Pride, ego, wrath. Be it the First Commandment, or demanding virgins be thrown into volcanos.

I'm not sure I get the question, but it's nature has changed because it suddenly fits the profile of the human god concept.

Let me put it another way - I don't believe "god" to be a position waiting to be filled. We've had enough gods - lets open our minds to another concept.

Certainly it fits the profile of the Judeo-Christian God when it demands worship with menaces, but even before that it fitted the profile of a god. The real question, I suppose, is - would you worship it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

The real question, I suppose, is - would you worship it?

Then I guess the real answer is no. Quite simply why would you worship anybody/thing? Awe, facination, fear, maybe but surely the notion of worshipping a creator is bourne of a human desire for such adoration projected on an entity that must be above all that?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Then I guess the real answer is no. Quite simply why would you worship anybody/thing? Awe, facination, fear, maybe but surely the notion of worshipping a creator is bourne of a human desire for such adoration projected on an entity that must be above all that?

Exactly. The original question (about the entity changing its nature) can be paraphrased as "if the Biblical God of the Christian fundamentalists actually exists, is he to be worshipped?".

For me, the answer is no - and therefore the question of his actual existence seems to me to be superfluous, rather than ridiculous, since whether he exists or not does not affect my atheism. Annoyingly, of course, this puts me in the position that many fundamentalists would ascribe to me - a perverse rebel against God. Given I have the same view of all other gods that I am aware of, I would imagine there will be a bit of a scrimmage before I get tossed into a specific punishing afterlife...

I don't really "get" worship - the enormity of being alive is sufficient to humble me, but I don't see how I would lay that at the feet of some other entity, physical or metaphysical.

cordially,
but damnedly,
Scofflaw

condra

If you're an anteist and you're wrong* then you'll definitely be getting a taste of enternal damnation. Unless there is a God who only repsects the opinions of atheists.

There is. Believe me! Dont ask why, just believe me.

adam_ccfc

I feel that atheism is the most logical belief as there is no reason to believe that "god" does exist.

For example, if I told you out of the blue that I saw an alien spaceship outside my house last night but I couldn't prove it or show you it, then surely it would be logical for you not to believe me.

Scofflaw

adam_ccfc wrote:

I feel that atheism is the most logical belief as there is no reason to believe that "god" does exist.

For example, if I told you out of the blue that I saw an alien spaceship outside my house last night but I couldn't prove it or show you it, then surely it would be logical for you not to believe me.

Alas, this is a fallacy. The Universe exists, and humanity wishes to explain it. Science offers one explanation - the many religions/philosophical systems offer other explanations. Religion may be make-believe, but not without a reason, as your example is.

Science uses particular tools - reason, objectivity, deduction, repeatability - and operates under specific constraints (no supernatural explanations of phenomena - only naturalistic). It is elegant, and tallies well with the evidence it observes. It has brought about an enormous improvement in living standards for most people.

Religion uses other tools - emotion, subjectivity, revelation, uniqueness - and operates under no real constraints. It is appealing, and gives people a sense of belonging and purpose. The larger, more inclusive, religions may have played a part in easing urbanisation.

Most people prefer religious explanations, or at least prefer not to abandon them for the materialistic explanations of science. Athough religion has less and less utility in explaining the phenomena of the natural world, that is not really its prime purpose. Religion is primarily an emotional explanation of the world.

To measure and describe a house, it is better to use science. Saying "you are welcome in this house" is not scientific, but not meaningless either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote:

To measure and describe a house, it is better to use science. Saying "you are welcome in this house" is not scientific, but not meaningless either.

Kudos. Very nice way to put it.
Cordially,
Wibbs





Cordial is a hard one for me at the best of times.:)

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote:

Cordial is a hard one for me at the best of times.:)

Many are chosen, but few are cordial?

blushing,
Scofflaw