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.
Everything comes down to faith.
I tend to agree
At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means.
The primary means are always the intellectual constructs of the individual.
Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason.
There are various external record keeping tools like the bible that that are used to create standardized intellectual constructs found to be beneficial. ALL of these involve reason.
you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means.
That doesn't make sense to me. If I have a rubber ball, and I claim that it bounces, what should I use to give credibility to my claim?
Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason.
Yet I am doing so right now!?
An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means.
If you are concerned with being credible...I agree
I have faith in the Bible.
Me too, I have faith that it's useful for promoting atheism
Others have faith in reason.
If you are on a debate site you have faith in reason.
It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.
WTF?
Reason is automatic. It's how we think.
No disagreement there
One doesn't need faith to merely think.
One doesn't think without a reason. Not trying to equivocate here, but thought is an endeavor toward some underlying hope, and hope requires faith.
One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.
How is it possible for an ideal to be formed in the mind without some sort of evidence?
How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.
Would you seriously claim that beliefs are formed without evidence? I would say that standards for what constitutes convincing evidence varies, but invariably all beliefs are based on evidence.
You don't have to have faith in reason.
If you are going to make use of reason you have to believe it will be worthwhile.
Reasoning is demonstrably accurate, as it uses the laws of logic inherent in the structure of the universe.
Faith is demonstrably accurate/inaccurate too. For example, even though I might be wrong, because there is surely a great deal of evidence I haven't considered, I have faith that the sun wont explode tomorrow. Tomorrow my faith will be tested.
I'd be interested in reading any proof you can provide that the laws of logic are inherent in the structure of the universe.
You only need faith in things you have no evidence for.
You need faith if you admit you are likely missing seriously important evidence.
Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability? You do realize that we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right? As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it. I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.
I understand that your argument is based on the "belief without evidence" interpretation of the word faith, but this statement.... We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition. .... I don't understand. Please help
God, if you go by the traditional theistic definition, is the proper object of worship.
I don't go by it, and I wonder why any atheist would.
If you do not assume this is true, then you are attacking a straw man.
I do assume that the definition you provided above is the traditional theist definition. AND FURTHER I think only a theist could go by such a definition.
I am arguing with you and I'd prefer not to argue against a stereotype or strawman. So tell me what you (not the traditional theists) think god is?
However, even if you do, you are also begging the question because such an assumption is based on evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
That comes across as rather nonsensical but here I go responding anyway..
How my assumption (that you have indeed given the traditional theistic definition of god) would make you think my argument (which is that what gods are are real people who are worshiped) is begging the question is to put it mildly, unclear to me.
Thus, no matter how you look at it, your argument is invalid.
A statement like that is evidence that you completely trust a judgment you've made to be infallible.
So then......
if god is the unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives.
and The unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives is still happening
then god exists
Ah but an individual CAN communicate with themselves can they not? Messages are sent from one part of the body to another, are they not?
Do you disagree that prayer is a form of internal self dialog? Do you disagree that what is regarded as god is actually an element of a persons personality that is mistakenly judged to be infallible?
The communication is coming from "what god really is" which is an intellectual construct (based on personal interpretation of events and messages) that's regarded as infallible.
My definition of god might be in need of refinement, but I think it's more rational than an alternative that refers to a supposed non-existent.
How can you address a problem while claiming it doesn't exist?
A message or two ago, you weren't acting as if you regarded the argument as being clearly with out merit. A comment such as "I think this is perhaps where the flaw in the argument lies." displays doubt about your ability to clearly expose a flaw.
By all means expose the flaws. I am here to be shown the error in my thinking.
Perhaps you can help make it clear to me, by asking pointed questions and establishing a set of undisputed logical premises. I'm prepared to take the time to be held accountable. Even if no one else will commit to building a logical argument from the ground up, I will.
I'll try a different angle.
The problem of theism is not a believing in non existent entity problem it's an excessive and uncritical trust in (worshiping of) existing entities problem.
Declaring atheism does not make one immune to the problem of worship. Modern atheism doesn't amount to much more than constantly reiterating "I don't believe in fairies"
when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept?
It's a term that can represent a wide variety of concepts. Rather than talking about which are most popular, I'd prefer to address the concept you maintain in your mind about what god is.
are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'?
Please treat me as an individual and don't try to stereotype me. I didn't find the articulations of what is referred to as the ontological argument very convincing or compelling myself.
this type of argument has already been defeated.
I'm sure there's a number of people who disagree, so it hasn't been completely defeated.
concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.
I'll argue that with you if you don't think it would be a waste of time.
"An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican
lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god.
I suppose that lots of ppl receive false teachings through communication with such a ppl, and when asked they'll say they learned it from god. The lessons aren't coming from nowhere.
'god', generally denotes a supernatural being.
If you want to use the word supernatural I'll expect you to define it logically. Are you sure you want to digress in that way just yet?
so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist.
Everything exists. Well described or not.
there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities.
How about a being that is regarded as being worthy of lifelong unwavering trust, and is considered incapable of error.
we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.
I think you would you agree that god is an imaginative construct.
you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.
Yeah I have. And it really bugs me that so many atheists accept and use the definition of god thats offered by them. Lets talk in terms of what is.
thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.
We can do our own scriptural interpretation. I hope you don't think I am being dishonest. I am just looking to refine the way I think and express my thoughts. If you want to help sweet, if not I understand.
There is some nuance here that may require some digging to clearly flesh out. But for the sake of argument, if god is defined as a worshiped being, I don't think that worship being improper would invalidate that definition, or somehow disprove their existence.
If there is no proper object of worship, either God's existence is unknown to us or that there is no God.
I think thats a false choice argument.
I don't think so. But atheism perhaps is itself a thought tradition in philosophy.
Indeed but I am thinking about a core principle that rules out certain intellectual activity that is absolutely regarded as something one ought not take part in. A ruling logic. I'm sure I could clarify...its late going to bed.
I never said it did, and I agree with you that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it. I'll go further and say the premise doesn't imply an ought at all. Are you thinking I am a theist? I'm not. Perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about theology. Do you think that even atheists have the intellectual equivalent of a theology?
So your argument is only that trusted people exist
Not only do trusted people exist, but individuals who are uncritically trusted exist. Uncritical and unwavering trust shapes my understanding of what worship is and worship is essential to what I think a god is. People seem to want me to only think of god in terms I cannot logically support. Can you understand why I refuse?
Not everyone who is unwaveringly and uncritically trusted is thought of as a god, but the term god does not need to exist for the practice of worship to exist and flourish. Since I think god most generally is thought of (by those who admit god's existence) to be unquestionably deserving of unwavering trust, this trust and who it's given to is what I think of while considering what gods are.
how is this a proof of God?
If anyone becomes convinced by my argument:
1. That beings that do exist are worshiped.
2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship
Then I have proven the existence of god to them.
Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.
I've got controversial opinions about prayer too. If your tendencies aren't too strongly dismissive. :)
Without having to admit the poorly defined terms "supernatural" "creator" and "universe" you could poll people who admit the existence of god and I'd wager they would invariably state that god is a being who deserves unwavering trust. I think god is more clearly and logically defined as a worshiped being.
It actually depends on which conception of "God" you are talking about.
I am talking about the one that exists because worship exists.
However, this argument still does not hold any water.
I am happy to read your thoughtful challenges
In traditional Abrahamic religions, God is said to be a maximally great being, if he exists
Most high is another way of putting it, I said in the debate description "most trusted" (until I changed "most" to "unwaveringly") because I see the practice of worship as involving great (Plenty often excessive) trust.
What this means is that God is believed to be an actual rational moral agent and not a mere metaphor.
And I suppose only an actual agent can be worsiped.
Thus, it is obvious that if "God" here refers to the Judeo-Christian God, then premise 1 is false.
It's referring to an individual or group that is worshiped.
If the premise is false, the argument is invalid and therefore, it doesn't prove the existence of God.
True. If you can show me how the premise is false, you'll be doing me a favor.
Even if you were to refer to God in the pantheistic sense, it still fails as the pantheistic "God" refers to nature. It thus is a metaphor for nature, and not "a person or group who is trusted".
I'm not referring to god in the pantheistic sense. I am referring to the type of gods invloved with the tradition of worship.
1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that.
Ok anything that can be discussed exists at least as a term. God exists at the very least as a term. So unless you disagree with that statement, you agree that god exists. The next step is to determine what is being referred to by the use of that term.
its not up to others to disprove it.
No one has to respond at all. But what objection can you give to the statement, "God exists at least as a term?" Unless you can give a reasoned objection, I'll note your agreement with it and move on.
I'd like to start with a logical definition of god instead of attempting to discuss things that don't exist.
you havent even provided evidence of a god.
Why bother try unless we can agree on the meaning of the word god?
you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god.
I'd love to see you support that assumption with what you call evidence. I'd say that in order for a being to qualify as a god it must be considered worthy of unwavering trust. Find someone to disagree with that in the general population of the modern world and I'd be surprised.
you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'.
I am unable to accept an illogical definition of the word. So if I am to use the word at all in good conscience, I'm should be able to define it logically. A great number of other people such as yourself, may not mind using an ill-defined word, but I do.
taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe)
Here you go again claiming to know what most people think and not presenting evidence. Let's not muddy the waters by introducing additional poorly defined terms. We need to create a series of agreements and begin our dispute from where we first disagree.
and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents
No I said most trusted. And here I clarify that I am talking about individuals who are worshiped or afforded unwavering trust.
then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison.
I am looking for someone to take the time to respect my point of view and challenge me. Not dismiss me. Challenge me. If you aren't equipped or willing so be it, and I'll do my best to make it clear if that is the case.
now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being.
That's right. I think doing so is retarded.
if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?
The habit of worship exists. It's impossible to worship a being that doesn't exist. Worshiped beings are what's being referred to by the use of the term god. Argue against the logic or slink away, it's your choice.
this really makes no sense.
That's the neat thing about polite debate, you can ask for clarification. And there's nice respectful people like me who won't try to make you seem stupid they'll just explain themselves.
this really makes no sense.
There's a difference between respecting someone and worshiping them, I'll explain it if you promise to quit misrepresenting what I said.
is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true?
I fancy myself as one who likes to challenge popular misconceptions. If by the way, I am challenged and can refine my thinking, all the better.
parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such?
Worship is useful early on, but it's a habit to outgrow. :)
you know what? nevermind
If you didn't want me to mind you wouldn't have responded. You should examine the disrespectful habit that underlies such pointless comments. I may not be a super genius, but I'm not an idiot. I know that such statements are made to say "This guys perspective is not worth considering" And it's insulting.
I am not doing any equivocation, I am talking about what a god is in reality. I can hardly argue about the qualities of a non-existent being. You might enjoy doing that, but you aren't being logical when you do. Face it.
My argument isn't self defeating, it's poorly considered.
Then what is this being or group of beings?
People who are extremely trusted.
If god is a metaphor for them, then they are not god.
This could help convince me to change the word "metaphor" in the description to "label" or "title". I'll grant that a title that describes something is only a reference to that something, and not the thing itself.
Patently false. I have had great trust in dogs that were unable to communicate.
Whats patently false is your belief that dogs are unable to communicate.
We are taking about an entity of which there is no objective evidence.
There is no such thing as objective evidence. Without an observer exercising their interpretation and judgement skills, evidence itself does not exist.
People think it exists and thin they communicate with it.
If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists. Which is the point you can't communicate with a non-existent being.
Your first point destroyed the proof all on it's own. if god is a metaphor the those entities are not god. Goes downhill from there.
The "map is not the territory" realization, or the realization that the words we use to describe things are not the things themselves, shouldn't lead to a lack of belief in the territory, or that something real is not being (albeit perhaps inadequately) described.
Here's the article that prompted me to post the debate : http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/
Is one obliged to strengthen those who would do one harm?
Those who desire to continue living are obliged to breathe, drink, eat food, etc.. Those who desire to improve living conditions for themselves are obliged to help improve the living conditions of others. I don't think that excluding those who would do you harm is wise. You make your own determination of that.
So the code only applies to those living under the auspice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and where those rights are actively enforced? What for North Koreans? What for Somalians?
The code applies to whoever will honor it. As I see it there are rights that are legally articulate, and those that aren't. For instance I think I have a right to make a recording of anything I witness and keep it in a private library.
Though you presume the authority to dictate the terms whereby a moral individual ought to live?
I can use language however I please. To promote whatever suits my fancy.
Then surely you cannot, sir, render a commandment that inhibits one's right to wish harm upon others?
I am not sure how much influence words I type might have. I do however have some experience with how idea complexes can take root and spread like wildfire.
Ah, humour. Very good, sir.
I appreciate your critical consideration. If you ever help me find a fault with my logic I'll paypal you $10 :)
Yes (if I am understanding you correctly). My primary contention is with the over-generalization. I admit that not all rhetoric which might be characterized as anti-religion overgeneralizes.
If an argument is against religion in its broadest sense, it's an over-generalization. Being more specific decreases the likelihood of over-generalization.
You have supposed that I have made a generalization about "all" anti-religious rhetoric, but you could have just as easily assumed that I meant "lots of". It's your disposition to think of these things in such an absolutist manner, not mine. It's you who thinks there's a useful logical distinction to be made between what is religious and what is secular, but won't take the time to explain one.
Anti-Anti-religious Rhetoric is lame.
Not if it's the kind that helps disrupt the destructive habit of constantly blaming "them" instead of looking for our own flaws.
Your ancillary argument seems to be that anti-religious speech is not going to change the minds of the already religious.
I think everybody is religious and those who claim otherwise are poorly informed about what religion is. So no, that is not my ancillary argument.
