Atypican's Waterfall
At the very least as an idea, god exists. Then of course there is my somewhat famous "ontological argument from worship" that has yet to be seriously refuted.
You're playing with words.
Guilty as charged
"Is what people say about God true?" is the same question as "Does God exist?".
This is not true. There is not a universally accepted definition of god. To illustrate this, I'd pose the question to you: Does god exist as described by pantheists?
When people ask that question they're not talking about whether God exists as a concept.
This is because we can all agree that "god exists, at least as a concept". Accepting this premise is necessary to any logical discussion about god. The other premise that must be accepted is that "truths can be known about god". Without acceptance of these two premises, the term god can only be used in an illogical manner.
They're talking about whether he exists as a God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
I'm not viewing god in a manner orthodox enough for you eh?
The question of whether or not god exists is equally important as it directly effects the importance of understanding god better.
If we accept that god exists at least as a concept then we have moved beyond asking if god exists and may now logically progress to questions about god's characteristic qualities. You cannot logically discuss the qualities of something assumed to not exist.
If god only exists conceptually, then it doesn't really matter, as god could be anything you want it to be, being a concept and all.
Ideas have consequences, and thinking of god strictly as an ideological construct, this ideological construct matters alot because it affects the way us humans interact with each other. If god did not exist, god would not have major sociological implications.
What exactly do you mean here? I agree with that statement but for different reasons.
That's strikes me as odd. You agree with the statement for reasons different than what I have yet to explain to your satisfaction. ie you don't know exactly what I meant, but you know enough to know that you agree for different reasons. I'll be happy to discuss effects of god after you admit god exists. Start a new debate and invite me.
Nobody is really arguing god doesn't exist as much as they are arguing that there is no reason to think so.
If we do not first accept the premise that: "truths can be known about god", then any statement or question posed with the word god as the subject remains meaningless.
If we are talking about reason to think something exists, it makes significantly more sense to argue against the idea of a god but not the universe.
really? Why do you believe in "The Universe" instead of "The Multiverses" ?
There is significantly more reason to acknowledge the universe exists then god.'
Pantheists understand the universe as god, Do you think they believe this for "No reason"?
A better question is..."Is what people say about god true?". Because of course god exists, at the very least conceptually. Another better question is..."Is god a matter of serious concern to us?" to which any honest thinking person who wasn't raised to be ignorant of history must answer yes. Attempting to argue that god does not exist is as pointless as arguing about whether or not there is a universe. The question is not "does the universe exist?", it is "how can we improve our understanding of the universe?"
No I mean like brushing my teeth itself is a religion by that definition. Not a part of, the entirety. My bathroom is my church. My dentist is my priest. The toothbrush, my god; the floss, his choir of heavenly spirits. Cavities and gum disease are the Devil and Hell. I would live by the code of dental hygiene, and better myself for it.
Never mind that it seems like you are referring to YOUR PROPOSED DEFINITION of religion as opposed to the one presented here, because I get the feeling that you're becoming less and less metaphorically challenged as a result.
In light of your comment, I think I made an improvement to the definition. What do you think?
X) Habitually and articulately expressed values and beliefs applied as a comprehensive philosophy or way of life. ?
This all goes back to me thinking you're deliberately too vague so you can draw parallels where none exist
You say that I aim to draw parallels (that don't exist) between religion and what? Perhaps truthfully, I am emphasizing parallels that do exist.
I've banged my head bloody against that wall, already.
I'm flattered
I'm posting here cause it's a new debate, even though I think we'll end up at the same old standstill. =D
Heaven forbid! :P
Also, did our discussion inspire this debate?
Yes, though I have long thought that religion was a poorly defined term.
First principles are nothing more than speculation, and I see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them.
Odd, here I am arguing on the same side as you, and I think just the opposite, I see no hope in any discussion or agreement without them. Without them there is no starting point for a logically progressive discourse at all. However, if possible I'd like you to explain how you came to believe that first principles are nothing more than speculation.
Atheism is simply a refutation of a denial for the need of these discussions (God bypasses them by simply existing throughout eternity).
Your perspective is not clear to me....Is it that of the "atheism" you describe? Because if so, it seems like your argument should be on the other side. I don't see how your position could be both that there is a "need for these" discussions AND that you "see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them".
Religion unites us and divides us, and fortunately so.
In a sense, everyone does believe in only one religion. A person cannot help but believe in the religion (belief/value system) that is intrinsically the most powerful. There is a prevailing ideology of self interest, and it's absolutely universal. Anyone not adhering to it's fundamental tenets will either reform or die in short order.
Therefore it certainly seems like there is no room for diversity when you get down to fundamentals. However, religious diversity is to us, as fundamental and important as roots are to a plant. If we don't view religion in an overly sectarian sense, we recognize and value both our commonality and our diversity. I do think that we are better off being able to look past our differences to recognize that we are ultimately part of a single community, but I also think failure to purposefully diversify would be fatal for us.
So then, just so you know, according to that logic... if you claim an understanding of god, your understanding is of someone who truly is not god....
But I am actually wondering if you agree with the OP statement: "Immature notions of god imbue individuals with a certainty where curiosity should remain. A mature notion encourages the opposite."
Only if 'immature' = 'most popular'.
Don't you suppose that the most poorly informed notions of god are the most popular?
Most atheists I find argue against 'Yahweh' because that's the most commonly held idea of "God", not because he's a soft target.
Assuming Yahweh as nonexistent makes him not targetable at all. You can't logically argue against the nonexistent.
There are much softer targets available.
example?
Now, some theists pull this ad-hoc loopty-loop bullshit where "God" is equal to whatever God has to be in order to dodge your criticisms of it. In this case, they're banking on the idea that if you make something sound complicated and ethereal enough, you can use the confusion your ideas cause as evidence that they are 'deep' and 'mature'. Debating these kinds of people, while tempting, is ultimately pointless.
Any logical discussion about god must start with the parties agreeing on an adequate definition of the term "god". If this consensus is never reached (and it almost never is between theists and atheists), than discussions truly are pointless. Practically all theists assume the agnostic position that god is of an undefinable nature, (god is by nature beyond our understanding) therefore atheists should realize the futility, and not take part in fundamentally illogical discussions.
Their whole method is to hide the contradictions in their ideology. You will never be able to peg them on anything substantial in their philosophy because they would never consciously risk being proven wrong and will instead remain permanently aloof.
Ideology...Now there's something atheists and theists can logically discuss. But in my experience, those who profess atheism are far more likely than theists to make the claim that they "have no ideology". Are you one of those? If so than you, just like the theists you describe are making it pretty hard for anyone to scrutinize your ideology (god?). If not I challenge you to be forthright about your ideology and let us know what your philosophical first principle is. What is your ideology based on?
In short, no. Atheists are not arguing against an immature notion of God.
Do you doubt that most atheists regard their "notion of god" as better informed than that of theists?
They argue against what's presented to them.
And what is presented to them is a concept that theists almost universally admit defies explanation. So the logical approach would be a refusal to proceed until terms are defined.
Not presenting anything concrete =/= presenting something 'mature'.
I don't particularly disagree. But admitting that a satisfactory understanding of ultimate truth eludes us, is common to both theists and atheists. If you are willing to present anything you regards as "concrete", it could be argued that you are treading the same ground as gnostic theists.
I see you took some inspiration from me here ;)
Sure did. But if you read my debates you'll know the subject is nothing new to me.
it's not a position I take
Got a reason why?
So when we say "God", how do we know we are correct in our usage?
Oh dear you'll have to get to know someone deeply and personally, and who wants to do that when stereotyping them is so much easier!
So emotions exist for the purpose of protecting valuables? Wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly.
I was sloppy to merely state "protecting valuables". Emotions arise due to our strongest desires. Desire may be to keep (protect) and also to obtain. Paying close attention to what we are emotional about, or what fires us up, is key to self actualization.
Well I've done just what you said not to. =p Over time I've beaten my emotions into submission in favor of reason and logic.
The advantage of harnessing the power of your emotions as opposed to beating them into submission, will require that you don't view reason and emotion as polar opposites. Sure many find comfort in being dispassionate. If you are wired to stand up for what you think and feel is right though, you'll be miserable.
I did this because more often than not my initial, knee-jerk reaction to something (and the action I want to take, on a whim) usually isn't the smartest or most well thought out thing to do in that situation.
But thanks to your still functioning emotional response system, you feel strongly compelled to DO SOMETHING.
My emotions pull of influence me one way, but if I sit and just think about it for a bit, I can usually think of a more viable alternative and understand why my initial reaction was silly and groundless.
Your initial reaction was to be agitated. What do you mean by groundless? Are you saying you were agitated for no discernible reason?
Faith by nature is something active? This is true as the fact that by nature all men are rich.
more or less, yes.
How many people do you know who state to have faith in something, while they ain't move a finger to reach the target of their faith:
I can't say. Supposing these people (liars) claimed to have faith in X, and did not. They still have active faith that this lying will somehow be beneficial.
they cross their arms thinking faith to be something easy as existing: unfortunately, they will never know what living means.
And we, I suppose, have some other great flaw that puts us in just as sorry of a position, and we're hopelessly screwed because of it. :P
How so?
The intellectual structures and pathways through which emotional activity is carried out are initially formed by internal reasoning.
I've always seen emotions as knee-jerk reactions.
This is how they seem, but the underlying mental complexes are formed over relatively long periods of time, and except in cases of severe mental illness are universally for the reasoned purpose of protecting valuables.
We don't really have a whole lot of control over our emotions, even though we do control how we use them.
Mastering ones emotions is difficult, but worth the effort. Our emotional responses can be made to better serve us if they are carefully and consciously tended to, and NOT regarded as being, by definition, contrary to reason.
So if you're confronted with a person or statement or object that triggers a certain emotion and you immediately act on that emotion, how is that reasoned thought and action?
Well how about fear of being shot. One could stand there analyzing their odds of getting hit or go with their conditioned response and kiss the dirt or run for cover.
Emotions and, by extension, emotional thinking don't need any kind of logic or rational to exist.
Prove it :)
In your first paragraph, and in your madman anecdote, you are admitting that there is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith, that's better than how "common usage" (in some circles) treats the concept. I have met SO many people who find it SO important to treat the concept of faith as anathema, that even when faced with what I think to be plain evidence, and careful reasoning, they ignore context, and remain fiercely stubborn; unwilling to concede even as much as you have. This debate is a perfect example, for were I not to have answered everyone on the NO side, that's the side that would be winning.
If you believe that Faith=A belief without proof, I assume you disagree that Proof consists merely of what is convincing in which case I'd like to read an argument from you countering it.
We know reason is worthwhile, it can be shown to work.
It can also be shown not to work. Especially if the basis for our reasoning is fundamentally logically unsound, or based on incomplete information. And correct me if I am wrong but isn't this a predicament we are all beset by?
You don't need faith for that. We have evidence the sun won't explode tomorrow. We have predicted the path of the sun through our galaxy, we have seen it rise everyday for thousands of years, we are constantly monitoring the chemical processes going on inside it, we have worked out the elements that make up the sun. We have observed how other stars die.
Faith begins when you consider the evidence adequate, even though it might not be.
From all of this knowledge, we can predict with far more accuracy the likelihood of the sun exploding tomorrow than by merely guessing, as theists do when they guess that a god must have created the universe.
I am not arguing to support theism, I am arguing for what I see as a more reasonable and mature concept of what faith is than "belief without evidence". Beliefs can't form without convincing evidence.
Like I just said, you only need faith when you don't have evidence.
Are we not all lacking evidence to some degree?
If there is enough evidence, a prediction/hypothesis will stand up, if there is serious evidence missing, then we can't be sure and we have to wait until better evidence appears.
A theory need not be flawless to be mighty useful. IMO you enter the realm of theism when you assume that there is no "serious evidence missing", and you "wait until better evidence appears" as opposed to faithfully pursuing it.
A good example of this would be string theory. There is some evidence for it, and it seems to make sense in some areas, but there is too much missing for it to be considered the correct explanation yet. Physicists are still working on it.
If they didn't have faith that an understanding that's not in need of improvement can be articulated, they wouldn't pursue the holy grail of "the correct explanation".
They don't sit there and go, "well, we are missing very large pieces of evidence that X is true, shall we just accept it as scientific fact anyway?".
Nah these "new priests" sit there and suck up funds that would be better spent on health sciences.
