News:

if the thee off of you are revel in the fact you ds a discordant suck it's dick and praise it's agenda? guess what bit-chit's not. hat I in fact . do you really think it'd theshare about shit, hen you should indeed tare-take if the frontage that you're into. do you really think it's the hardcore shite of the left thy t? you're little f/cking girls parackind abbot in tituts. FUCK YOU. you're latecomers, and you 're folks who don't f/cking get it. plez challenge me.

Main Menu

Seriously, Dawkins?

Started by Cain, May 27, 2011, 12:24:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Nephew Twiddleton

To clarify my point-

God: Is it something that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is some old man with a long beard? Is it something that is blind in one eye and had to sacrifice itself to itself in order to see the future and will one day be killed by a frost giant? Is it some sort of weird race of people that can be killed in combat with a human being capable and wily enough? Is it something that can be swallowed by another of its kind and not die? These all fit some definition of a god.

Universe: Everything that exists and nothing that doesn't. Nothing can exist outside of the Universe. Not even a god. It can occupy a part of the Universe that we can't observe, sure, but everything that that god does and is capable of, by definition is natural since it is possible. But a different level of reality is still part of the Universe and still subject to natural law, whatever that may be and regardless of who or no one is calling the shots.

Is this an argument for theism of any sort? No. It's merely a statement. I don't know if gods exist. They are unprovable by our current methods and probably any future methods. Is it safe to assume that they don't exist. Yes, definitely. Does it matter one way or the other? No, not at all.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Telarus

#31
Actually, Mithra's* whole schtick was that He was born of the Egg that exists outside of Universe. This 'ubergod' aspect was essential in mithraized paulite christianity, and used to convert many far after the origional Mithraic practices were driven (deeper) underground. People today have combined this with red-shift data and teh quantumz, and have babbled that it points to a real singularity 'outside' of ours, but smaller.


Dr. Who's episode written by Neil Gaiman actually played on this myth. The whole 'planet-universe' that was out there was eating TARDISes, and was an interesting inversion of the Yadaboath(sinister creator) of Gnostic Mithraicism.






* (lol, I typed 'Mothra' at first)
Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

Telarus

Compare that to say, the Monkey stories out of the Chan/Buddhist traditions. Monkey is a wild force of nature, and gets dragons to bow to him and trick them into forging him fallen meteors for his Staff, etc, etc, but is still bound to the Tao (as represented by the Celestial Bureaucracy once the stories were translated for a Confucian audience) in that he must be the Emperor/Empress' errand boy when truly called upon. Of course, his willingness to 'bend' the rules is pretty much the only thing that saves the Ten Thousand Things when the Demon Horde attacked. But throughout the tale, there is a constant subtext of being grounded, beholden to the world of Samsara as it is in the moment, but not to it's Karma (the ideas/emotions about the recent past).

Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

Telarus

#33
As such, I think the concept of 'Deity' probably has more to do with measurement of Culture and Narrative than anything else. It's the only thing in 'reality' that the individual instances of the concept line up with in any meaningful way.

*I still leave open the probability that Eris will physically manifest when I'm not looking to slap me on the back of the head & prove me wrong, but that's a game I play.
Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

Faust

Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 08:52:54 AM
To clarify my point-

God: Is it something that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is some old man with a long beard? Is it something that is blind in one eye and had to sacrifice itself to itself in order to see the future and will one day be killed by a frost giant? Is it some sort of weird race of people that can be killed in combat with a human being capable and wily enough? Is it something that can be swallowed by another of its kind and not die? These all fit some definition of a god.

But these in no way encompass even a small amount of the various characteristics used to define the term god. In fact the ones you listed area all from a very similar set of characteristics.

It gets complicated when god means 'the sum of the natural universe' or 'the unknown' to others. The word god is useless and should not be used in any debate of existence. If "God" the word has no anchoring then the question "Does God exist" is absurdest no matter what stance you take "No god does not exist" "Yes god exists" "maybe god exists" are all completely meaningless exercises in navel gazing.
Sleepless nights at the chateau

Slyph

#35
I don't even get his point. What is he actually trying to say? My best guess is "We should (maybe) support Christianity against Islam in Africa because it's more tolerant, and because Atheism doesn't sell there."

I want to weigh in on "Atheism is a religion / True Scientists are Agnostics" but a) I'm tired of banging that fucking drum and frankly I'm disenfranchised with my Dawkins-baby past and genuinely want to make intellectual progress, even though my precis are sound. and b) You've heard it all before.

edit:

I think I get it now, "There is an argument that We as Atheists have a duty to support the White Man's efforts to Christianize the backwards Africans, even though Christianity is patently false."

Yes, I still owe Dawkins a lot, Yes, I still "like" him, Yes, I will keep buying his books, Yes, I really, really hope he shuts the fuck up about some things because he's made it very hard to defend him.

There are four words vital to a skeptics' arsenal. They are; "I Do Not Know". When it comes to politics, Dawkins should employ them a hell of a lot more.

Quote from: Faust
But these in no way encompass even a small amount of the various characteristics used to define the term god. In fact the ones you listed area all from a very similar set of characteristics.

One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.

As for Agnosticism, I would say a lot of Atheists are Agnostics. I call myself an Atheist, but we all know the chart actually looks like this:




Faust

Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 11:20:02 AM

One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.



I disagree with the olded parts for incorrect or generalizations
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human. There is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.

All god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god". Atheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.
Sleepless nights at the chateau

Slyph

#37
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 01:42:51 PM
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human.

They had supernatural powers, and were contrasted with atomism.


QuoteThere is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.

Fluffies and unquantifiable blah-blahs respectively.


QuoteAll god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god".
I know what you're saying, but I don't know why you're saying it.

QuoteAtheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.

I don't know what you mean when you say "Atheism as belief", Do you mean the Atheism implied by the statement; "I do not believe in God"? I don't see the irrationality in the statement; "When people say 'There is a God', I believe them to be mistaken."

A person can hold true beliefs. I have beliefs about water that are factually true. In fact, were I to say, "There isn't a God", or "I believe there is no God", I would actually be saying the same damn thing, because of the circumstances in which I said the former (Non-omnipotence) make the latter plain.

I'm having a bad brain day, hell, I'm having a bad brain year, but uh, in a weird way it seems like part of your argument might be:

"God" is sketchily defined and has shifting, culturally specific and complicated meanings
Therefore, it is irrational to "Disbelieve in God"

edit: Wait, do you mean "irrational" or "non-scientific, belonging to some other sphere"?

Nephew Twiddleton

Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:09:58 PM
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 01:42:51 PM
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human.

They had supernatural powers, and were contrasted with atomism.


QuoteThere is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.

Fluffies and unquantifiable blah-blahs respectively.


QuoteAll god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god".
I know what you're saying, but I don't know why you're saying it.

QuoteAtheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.

I don't know what you mean when you say "Atheism as belief", Do you mean the Atheism implied by the statement; "I do not believe in God"? I don't see the irrationality in the statement; "When people say 'There is a God', I believe them to be mistaken."

A person can hold true beliefs. I have beliefs about water that are factually true. In fact, were I to say, "There isn't a God", or "I believe there is no God", I would actually be saying the same damn thing, because of the circumstances in which I said the former (Non-omnipotence) make the latter plain.

I'm having a bad brain day, hell, I'm having a bad brain year, but uh, in a weird way it seems like part of your argument might be:

"God" is sketchily defined and has shifting, culturally specific and complicated meanings
Therefore, it is irrational to "Disbelieve in God"


edit: Wait, do you mean "irrational" or "non-scientific, belonging to some other sphere"?

Since the Greek gods were essentially personified forces of nature, they didn't have supernatural powers. They were the natural powers themselves. There's nothing supernatural about lightning or the shifting of seasons.

As for the bolded part, I can't speak for Faust, but discussions about God are essentially meaningless and pointless* because everyone thinks something different when the word is mentioned. Hell, depending on context, I don't even think the same thing as I did the last time I got into a conversation about it. Nobody can agree on what a god is in the first place. And I would say that atheism is non-scientific.


*especially pointless since people have already made up their minds about it and that doesn't usually change. You can't convince a Christian into being an atheist and you can't convince an atheist that Muhammad was actually a prophet.
Strange and Terrible Organ Laminator of Yesterday's Heavy Scene
Sentence or sentence fragment pending

Soy El Vaquero Peludo de Oro

TIM AM I, PRIMARY OF THE EXTRA-ATMOSPHERIC SIMIANS

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 01:42:51 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 11:20:02 AM

One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.



I disagree with the olded parts for incorrect or generalizations
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human. There is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.

All god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god". Atheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.

I agree completely. Also, the Atheist argument fails before it starts because it demands that everyone share their definition of "god".
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Slyph

QuoteSince the Greek gods were essentially personified forces of nature, they didn't have supernatural powers. They were the natural powers themselves. There's nothing supernatural about lightning or the shifting of seasons.

A natural explanation of rainfall; Water cycle. A supernatural explanation; God's tears. You can't really say a supernatural explanation like "Ares is making it rain because we sacrificed a horse for a good harvest" is a natural explanation, since it involves something allegedly transcending material interactions. To say "Their natural explanations were not good enough to account for rainfall without Gods"'s got a borrowed concept in it.

I think, I guess, what you're trying to say is the Greeks might have believed "There's a material bloke called Ares pouring water out onto the land", no numinity, no transcendence, non-supernatural. This is not generally true. There was a word for Atheism, and Epicurus was considered pretty weird for suggesting the Gods were Mortal and Material. The Greek Gods were definitely generally held to be made of woo-stuff.

QuoteAs for the bolded part, I can't speak for Faust, but discussions about God are essentially meaningless and pointless* because everyone thinks something different when the word is mentioned. Hell, depending on context, I don't even think the same thing as I did the last time I got into a conversation about it. Nobody can agree on what a god is in the first place. And I would say that atheism is non-scientific.

1) I can personally attest to discussions on religion changing some minds, since I'm a former Christian.

2) Debating other people, even when you change no minds, at least helps you get things straight in your own head.

Quote from: NigelI agree completely. Also, the Atheist argument fails before it starts because it demands that everyone share their definition of "god".

Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.

LMNO

Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:53:54 PM
made of woo-stuff.

That just became my new favorite phrase.

Quote
Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.

Asphaultia, goddess of convenient parking spaces.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

I don't think you understand, Sylph. You insist on pitbulling the Atheist model of personifying the concept of "a god", and because that's your model, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with you about it. Atheists are just as circular in their reasoning as Fundamentalist Christians... in fact, it's unsurprising that most hardcore Atheists are former Christians. Same business model, really.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Slyph

Quote from: Nigel on May 27, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
I don't think you understand, Sylph. You insist on pitbulling the Atheist model of personifying the concept of "a god", and because that's your model, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with you about it. Atheists are just as circular in their reasoning as Fundamentalist Christians... in fact, it's unsurprising that most hardcore Atheists are former Christians. Same business model, really.

I get what you mean, but I guess, hell, I do think "non-personal god" is a contradiction in terms. I just don't really understand what is meant by it. I mean, take "Justice", there is a personification of Justice we commonly use, but we do not believe in her literal existence.

Bleh... I think I actually am having a stroke, or at least reaching for words I don't possess...

Okay, I'll try and put it this way... "I do not distinguish between "a God without a person" and "a metaphor"

Slyph

Gaia theory: "We can think of the whole world as one living entity called "Gaia".

A metaphor: "My watch is a jailer."