In this blog I do not intend to prove to an atheist that there is a God, nor do I wish to show why any certain God is better than any other. The scope here is limited to attaining a definition that qualifies the most common and inclusive of all faiths definitions of that word. A definition that is inclusive, not divisive.
There are thousands of claims made concerning the will of God, and how that being, if present, wants us to act in many situations. Each Sunday in tens of thousands of locations an equal or greater number of people speak about their own interpretations concerning the Christian God, and that version is only one of the many ways of seeking understanding of the person or concept that is referred to by that name. My own interpretation carries no more authority than any of those other well intentioned people.
Nearly every monotheistic religion agrees that God is the creator, and to some extent, the controller of all creation. Some maintain that every step is predestined from the beginning, and others allow that ‘free will’ is allowed to individuals within the ‘law’ which God established. Creation is also depicted in many ways from a definite origin such as Genesis or a Big Bang, to a steady state of an eternal universe where God is more like the director, and creation is as it always has been.
Many other attributes are less universally applied to the word. Some like Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscience (all knowing), and Perfect Benevolence are common, but not even accepted by all Christian theorists, let alone the many others. Details like Afterlife, morality, personality, and salvation are the source of division, and knowable only through conflicting revelation, and interpretation. Adding personality and human like motives to the concept also begins many arguments, but is beyond the very broad meaning that I am intending here.
So the basic definition is: God is the creator and controller of everything.
I would like to see answers and opinions to these questions:
All:
Are there any other qualities that must be included in this, hopefully, all inclusive definition?
Theists (all religions):
Is there anyway in which the God you have faith in is not the same as reality and all natural law?
Atheists:
Is there any reason that reality and natural laws absent personality cannot be referred to as God as Pantheism does?
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
Previous Blog in series.
If there was no God, there would be no universe and no earth with nobody on it. Something had to have created other planets, other galaxies.
And if that is the case, then something had to have created God so that God could create the creation.
I know chillbill's view on this, but still, this is the entire problem with the God theory.
The same problem plagues the Big Bang theory.
Any thoughts on this question?
Atheists:
Is there any reason that reality and natural laws absent personality cannot be referred to as God as Pantheism does?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I actually liked that idea, but it doesn't account for supernatural occurances that supposedly happen, that I am highly skeptical of.
No,there is no reason that they cannot be called God. This is why I don't feel comfortable calling myself an atheist. You should come visit my blog and read my view. It can be found here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/074528-my-religion-or-lack-thereof
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
But that leaves the question what reason is there to call them god?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I think it depends on the individual. Some people would say that isn't God because God is a vaporous being, or God has control over us, or whatever. Others would agree that this is God because God created the world, and if some type of activation energy force created the world then we can call that creator God. I think that words only have the meanings that the sayer and listener give them, so we could call it "hairdryer" as long as we were on the same page.
I like the idea of The Force, or The Activation Energy, but I think it would be hard to take The Force seriously. :)
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
I have read a great number of views on this debate and it is my most firm belief that there exists a Creator, and that said Creator is the God of the Bible.
God Bless!
-Tim
Theists (all religions):
Is there anyway in which the God you have faith in is not the same as reality and all natural law?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
God is a source, everything we know is a part of that same source, to create an understanding one needs to align within to see and witness truth!
This source mirrors all we see, even when peeking at a mirror, most fail to understand we are in fact nothing more than a thought seeking a way to identify itself.
Who are you?
If God is a source, then what is God?
"most fail to understand we are in fact nothing more than a thought seeking a way to identify itself."
I throughly like that quote.
God is the beauty of stillness which put’s one in the moment of experiencing now! This stillness allows one to witness and become part of now.
Now is not the future nor the past, now is don’t think, be!
There is no greater gift one can wish for than to walk around in the now with a heart that carries an abundance!
This abundance is God, it is the love that drives us all, it is the lack of love that divides us all while it is stillness that makes us to become one!
In stillness lies the answer for all to find because it is the source of all truth and love!
If you like to know more about “now and stillness”
So many times before have I said people look the wrong way,
You are different, you question wisely, this is way cool, question everything and you will find the answers, more fun than talking to the dead I can assure you!
I don’t know you, how do I know you are real?
Who are you?
This whole platform is a projection of our thoughts, this is why we like to hang around here! We love this place because we treat it with importance in order to make it even more meaningful. Regardless of the hurt we come across most of us find freedom and a peace of mind in here.
One fine day, stillness will manifest itself within this platform, projecting our thoughts so full of abundance, love will step right in our hearts…
God is a thought…
Of course not. You COULD call the gnur under your toenails God if you want. But since the common definition of "God" includes anthropomorphic qualities, you risk losing the distinction that your "God" doesn't have these qualities.
Conceptually, what do you gain by calling the laws of nature "God" instead of just leaving them as the "laws of nature"?
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Conceptually, what do you gain by calling the laws of nature "God" instead of just leaving them as the "laws of nature"?"
What you gain is one interpretation of what the originators of monotheism may have been driving at.
Though they were less educated than modern man, and had fewer terms and concepts, there is no reason to think of them as less inteligent than man is today. Worship of pantheistic gods, ancestors, and aspects of nature were the rites being replaced as monotheism grew to dominate world views.
The panteistic single Gods were, at first, just a superior god above the others. The nature and elemental worship that held wind, fire, sky, darkness to be deity evolved into many varieties of worship of nature as a whole. Attempting to align ones self with nature is the basis of 'natural philosophy' which is what they called science in Newtons time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
It didn't take you long to fall into the problem I first mentioned. Your loose terminology has already allowed you to lose the distinction that equating natural laws with God means God is not anthropomorphic.
Wrong ... there is no reasonable doubt that the early Gods were anthropomorphic.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Wrong ... there is no reasonable doubt that the early Gods were anthropomorphic."
Actually the inventors may or may not have believed that. They were working with some vast array of superstition in those days. Then as now, people will believe just about anything, and in the days before monotheism they certainly did. Imagine yourself in those days trying to convince people to only believe observable facts. It would have been an uphill battle, and your own lack of explanations for most natural phenomena, which we take for granted today, would not have helped. Frustration could have led you or other more objective people to reinvent this sea of superstition into a more manageable single creative and controlling force, perhaps as a step toward the goal of eliminating superstition altogether. It has begun to work out that way as history has played out.
---
"Your loose terminology has already allowed you to lose the distinction that equating natural laws with God means God is not anthropomorphic."
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. I understand that you do not believe nature to be anthropomorphic, and using the term God in that place creates the implication that it is. I would not suggest, or expect you to adopt the equivalent in daily conversation, just while reading references to god such as the bible. If you do you will see that for some declarative statements it fits very well, and makes some seemingly impossible claims obviously true.
As I've told you before, I do not wish to 'convert' you; I just want to improve acceptance and understanding between people. Adversarial confrontation is a very useful thing, but for some goals conciliation is the better tact. Man's relationship to god or nature is not static it is fluid. Perceptions like Christianity or Atheism tend to shift dramatically, but smooth transitions are possible through slight alterations of insight.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Actually, they did believe God was anthropomorphic. There is no reasonable doubt on that point. Read the bible.
That's because you have already forgotten the question you asked that I have responded to
You asked:
I replied
Then you say that
But what is of NO REASONABLE DOUBT the originators of monotheism had an anthropomorphic God in mind. BOOM!! You have just fallen into the trap that I mentioned.
You seem to want to come up with a God we can all agree on. But there isn't a God we can all believe in. The differences are real and irreconcilable. You can't resolve the differences by claiming that God is not anthropomorphic and then tacitly assuming that he is. That's ignoring the differences and it leads to MISunderstanding instead of understanding.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"There is no reasonable doubt on that point. Read the bible."
Monotheism predates the bible by some time.
---
"You seem to want to come up with a God we can all agree on. But there isn't a God we can all believe in."
I'm not trying to make you believe. All I have as a goal here is to limit the amount of cluttered claims that exist arround the concept. I was an agnostic since I was an atheist, so there are many claims regarding god that I find to be beyond my personal faith. I really just don't know. As an athiest I understand that you consider those same claims as baseless, and just plain wrong. I can respect that, though I think it also assumes too much.
I am not claiming that a non anthropomorphic god is my belief. It is just a point of potentially common ground. I think there is a reasonable possibility that awareness and inteligence could exist on a very large scale. It does in eight pounds of human brain matter.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
If you are going to try to claim that early monotheistic gods were NOT anthropomorphic then make your case. Otherwise we have every right to consider your claim that the originators of early monotheism may have thinking of natural laws when referring to God to be a statement from ignorance.
Funny way to achieve your goal ... by making another meaningless claim about God.
What assumes too much?
One thing I hate is for people to tell me what they DON'T claim. Tell me what you DO claim.
But let's go back to what I was responding to:
A God that is "[n]atural laws absent personality" IS a non-anthropomorphic God.
Which is an attempt to find a God that we can all believe in ... like I said.
What evidence do you have to think that to be a reasonable possibility?
The human brain is about 3 pounds.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
That phrase is the best description IMHO of our differences. It is a phrase an objective person would not use unless solid evidence was availiable. Unless coroboratable and unconflicting evidence can be found there is always a reasonable doubt. How can you be so certain?
If in fact the ORIGINATORS of monotheism, not rank and file members of the congregation, are certain to have considered God anthropomorphic think about what that implies. Everyone else was worshiping statues and suddenly a person became certain there was only one God that made everything, and took a personal intrest in humanity. Since this happened thousands of years ago I cannot be certain, but this would lend a great deal of credability to beliefs that direct revalation of some sort was at work. Another way in which your certainty could be realized is if the first man and woman 'walked with God' as the bible literaly states.
On the other hand the POSSIBILITY I raised is just suggesting that primitive man was capable of rational thought, doubt, and perhaps even Atheism. That doesn't seem like so big a stretch to me. I am not saying that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, or even that a preponderance of evidence suggests it. I already laid out how I think it could have happened it my earlier post.
Atheism assumes that a scientific and causal universe is the only possibility. Agnosticism which admits that the nature of god is in fact unknown and perhaps unknowable. As I have said before too much certainty about the unknown is bias. and that clouds a persons ability to think about and see things as they are. Perhaps I also assume too much, but I do entertain a 'reasonable doubt' when I do not know.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
(1) The reason I can be so certain is a little something called EVIDENCE. I agree that is a major difference between you and me. I consider it, you dismiss it claiming uncertainty.
Here is the evidence
(1) The first monotheism known was from Egypt. That instituted by the pharaoh Akhenaten. His God was Aten who was one of the Egyptian pantheon of Gods. In other words, Akhenaten modified it from a polytheistic religion.
(2) Judaism did not start as a monotheistic religion either. El, one of the names the bible uses for God, was a Sumerian God. Judaism began more as a henotheism (worship of a single God without denying the existence fo other Gods) rather than a monotheism.
(3) Zorasterianism is another early form of monotheism. It's God is Ahura Mazda, an anthropomorphic God. It too has evidence of polytheistic past.
Those are about it for the origin of religions we consider to be monotheistic. They all were derived from polytheistic roots. Furthermore, all the religions that were in existence before then that we know of were also polytheistic.
The EVIDENCE is clear. There is no reasonable doubt.
You try to say well there COULD BE something that we don't know about that suggests otherwise. You think that is intellectual honesty. It isn't. It is about as intellectually DISHONEST as you can get ... especially the way you use it.
You use it to give credence to ideas that have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for it, and ALL the evidence going against it. Intellectual honesty is assessing the EVIDENCE, not saying, oh well, the evidence COULD be wrong. Of course the evidence could be wrong. Do you have any reason to think it is? NO ... or at least you haven't given any.
To say the evidence COULD be wrong when there is nothing to suggest it is, is no better than saying that God could of whipped everything up 30 seconds ago and instilled in us false memories. That is a logical possibility and one that cannot be possibly proven wrong, but there is no reason to give it any credence.
How can I be so sure, all the evidence points that way and NONE points your way. Get some evidence that suggests otherwise and then we'll talk. But until then your suggestions as to possibilities in the face of ALL available evidence is nothing more than a ruse to try to have it the way you want it to be ... Again, that is NOT intellectual honesty, but its antithesis.
(2) My atheism doesn't assume that a "scientific and causal universe" is all that is possible. First of all, at a quantum level the EVIDENCE says the universe is NOT causal. Second, what my atheism DOES say is that from all available EVIDENCE there is no justifiable reason to think that a supernatural world exists.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...by selective attention.
Casting your net a bit further reveals more.
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Nature_Worship
http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/diamat/14.htm
http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Librarypdf/History/Ancient%20Sun%20...
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553236/nature_worship.html
Selecting only one side of the evidence to deny a reasonable doubt is an interesting 'scientific' method. The most irritating trait you exhibit is using an exclusively adversarial approach and claiming it is scientific. Science attempts to be comprehensive, not biased.
---
"at a quantum level the EVIDENCE says the universe is NOT causal."
I think saying that the universe is not PREDICTABLY causal would be more accurate for the evidence we have.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Atheists:
Is there any reason that reality and natural laws absent personality cannot be referred to as God as Pantheism does?"
No, but there is no reason for me to do so since god, in common usage is not a bunch of Universal laws. And if it was, why would I worship it?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"No, but there is no reason for me to do so since god, in common usage is not a bunch of Universal laws."
The common usage includes control and authorship of those laws.
---
And if it was, why would I worship it?
That brings up an interesting part of the debate. It is known as The Euthyphro dilemma. Basicaly do you worship (or love god) because god wants it, or because you are so grateful for all of the blessings you receive? In the case of nature as god it would be the later. Having a happy joyous and grateful attitude is its own reward, but many can find no reason.
The word worship brings pictures of alters and dead goats to mind for me.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Indeed, but I don't believe in a controller of Universal laws, or rather, not a sentient controller. More of a self regulating thing.
Well, I'm certainly glad that the Universe exists, but I'm still not going to sing its praise. It's just a rather impressive thing...
"The word worship brings pictures of alters and dead goats to mind for me."
lol
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"More of a self regulating thing."
It is amazing how many natural systems exhibit that self reulating, or ballancing behavior. It is the rule rather than the exception. Undiscovered aspects of this may mean very large entities do exist, and perhaps even have inteligence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
A large entity with sentence isn't a god.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...is more or less where it would have to be to qualify. Many of the traits and anecdotes in the bible, and other religious tomes would match that description, but some of the more directly quoted passages would still be very questionable at least in my opinion which is no more definitive than anyone else’s.
We all have different experiences to base our understanding on. I would no longer ridicule the things others believe, though I have been as bad in that regard as anyone in my past. I do think that the fruits of your beliefs are the important factor rather than the basis, or any specific notion. If you are inspired to help not hurt, are happy not sad, Love not hate then you have positive values that should be encouraged. The word you use may be God, Bhagwan, Dao, Shiva, Karma, or Justice. In the end it is the result that matters most.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I believe in fostering those positive values, but see no deity or entity of any sort lurking in that or any desire. I also see no reason to believe that the universe is sentient. While in may be, I think that an extraordinary claim, so I will need a lot of evidence before I believe that.
And personally, my favorite god is Azathoth.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
lol.
That picture is a lie!!!!
Apparently, no one can look at his face and come away sane so....
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Some laws understood to be true, don’t fit inside where there’s a lack of boundaries for any laws to arise upon…
People don’t have to explain there is no ending universe, most wouldn’t know how to explain a future outlived.
Most of us are like fish inside a bowl submerged in an endless ocean while not understanding there is no bowl.
To understand this bowl is nothing more than an illusion, is to understand laws keep one inside the boundaries of the physical experience, whether those boundaries are found within a bowl or an entire ocean is of no importance.
All we experience is thought,
Unfortunately, in order for your definitions to have any real, rational meaning...this is a necessary first step. If you simply viewed "god" as a subjective concept, you would be well within reasonable bounds to establish an arbitrary defintion for the meaning of that word. However, we know from your comments later in your blog that this is not the case.
If "god" is a "creator" (i.e. being, entity, etc.), then any attepmt to define "god's" existence must be approached as a object. In other words, one does not simply assign arbitrary properties that you would like to see embodied in an object. Rather, one must observe the object and subsequently discover its properties. That of course leads us back to your failure to address the necessary but questionable premise of "god's" existence.
Like ALL theistic ideas, your argument relies on a very basic logical fallacy known as begging the question or more commonly as "circular logic." This error in your thinking renders all of your subsequent conclusions unsound.
You can refer to your imaginary friend by whatever name you wish. But if you wish to be understood by other human beings, then you might want to consider that certain terms are loaded with meanings and connotations that may (and in this case most certainly do) interfere with your ability to get your point across. If you want to refer to reality and natural laws, then it seems unnecessary (and inaccurate) to personify those concepts with an attribution of intelligence for which there is no actual, objective evidence.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"in order for your definitions to have any real, rational meaning"
Definitions of words help understanding of the concept described. Obviously we all have opinions, but the goal here is to reduce the baggage on the word to the most universaly acceptable minimalist level. Idealy that could be a few basic things we all mean when we say God, or god. The questions that are left out are part of the dificulty in discussing this, because each of us brings many disparate conclusions and background with us.
---
"If you simply viewed "god" as a subjective concept, you would be well within reasonable bounds to establish an arbitrary defintion for the meaning of that word. However, we know from your comments later in your blog that this is not the case."
As I said My opinion is not any more valid toward,or the basis of what I am seeking here. We ALL have different opinions, but it is possible to share a definition.
---
"Like ALL theistic ideas, your argument relies..."
No argument, just discussion of a comon definition.
---
Sigh...Can you address the definition, and answer the question for all, and/or atheists? Your statement after you quote that question ignores the question itself.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
If you wished to "reduce the baggage" in your argument, you could hardly have made a poorer choice than attaching your ideas to terms that are as connotatively loaded as "God, or god." In the context of your useage here, these terms are an example of weasel words.
Indeed. Unfortunately, the backgroud that you bring does not appear to be based in a good understanding of the methods of logical argumenation. Your presentation fails to address a very basic logical fallacy, which in my mind brings your "background" into serious question.
When I need a defintion, I normally turn to the dictionary...
-------------------------
Main Entry: 1god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
-------------------------
The first defintion above is not all that different than the one you propose, but note that all of these defintions refer to "god" in the context of an object or being, and only relates to the concept of an "ultimate reality" in a uniquely religious context...i.e the acceptance of a "being" or "spirit" that is assumed to be the "creator" and "ruler of the univese." Defintions like this only work on a conceptual level, based on the a priori religious assertion of the existence of supernatural beings and forces. When one applies empirical logic to the question, however, one quickly realizes that this defintion relies on an assumed premise that doesn't stand up to close examination. This is the core fallacy that is found in all theistically based arguments...quite literally without exception. The reasoning behind such a defintion is inherently circular, i.e. one must already believe that "god" exists before the definition has any real meaning.
I tend to use the term "argument" in a very specific manner, specifically as the term refers to "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."
I would never presume to speak for "all" atheists or otherwise. However, I will sum up my own rebuttal for you now:
Your defintion attempts to anthromorphize the natural world throught the use of loaded terminology that glosses over a basic logical flaw in your argument. Your subsequent conclusions are by necessity unsound, relying as they must on a faulty premise that cannot be objectively shown to be true.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The first defintion above is not all that different than the one you propose, but note that all of these defintions refer to "god" in the context of an object or being, and only relates to the concept of an "ultimate reality" in a uniquely religious context"
The first definition is exactly the one I mean. The word God itself is religious there is no way arround that, except maybe if an atheist uses it as an expetive. I agree that the word implies anthromorphic qualities, but using it does not imply that you believe in those qualities. Only that you are refering to a being that, if one exists, has that role.
"Your defintion attempts to anthromorphize the natural world throught the use of loaded terminology that glosses over a basic logical flaw in your argument. Your subsequent conclusions are by necessity unsound, relying as they must on a faulty premise that cannot be objectively shown to be true."
Subsequent conclusions based on logical argument is not where this is going. Logic leads to proof, or nowhere. In any case where you lack sufficient facts it is the later. Thus the next step after defining God would be experimentation and observation. There is no other way I know of to increase the number of facts you have to work with.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Are you suggesting that you can provide us with a falsifiable test that would demonstrate the truth-value of your hypothesis?
Did you mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe," or did your mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind," or did you mean both?
This is disingenuous. You have already established the fact that you believe in this being...and that you even go one step further and see that being the in context on one, specific religion...i.e. the christian one. Also, it seems in any case unreasonable to suggest that one could honestly appeal to these alleged anthropomorphic qualities without believing that they exist.
It is becomming more and more obvious that you have never actually studied Logic.
This is a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). The negative counter to a positive assertion does not require facts to support it. If you are going to continue to appeal to Logic in support of your proposition, then you need to understand that the Logical burden of proof lies with you in this argument.
You are confusing the disciplines of Logic and Empiricism. In Logic, one may only construct a sound argument leading to a valid conclusion if all of the premises of your argument are actually true. In empirical experimentation, one must apply a falsifiable test to your subject, and then adjust your hypothesis accordingly. From a Logical point-of-view, your argument fails because it begs the question of god's existence (which would need to be the conclusion of your argument were it both valid and soundly constructed). From an empirical point-of-view, your hypothesis fails due to simple lack of evidence.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Are you suggesting that you can provide us with a falsifiable test that would demonstrate the truth-value of your hypothesis?"
What hypothesis?
---
"Did you mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe," or did your mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind," or did you mean both?"
For the intent of this blog the "spirit" "Worship" "Divine" "infinite Mind" would have to be omitted for users such as you, but "the supreme or ultimate reality" would be acceptable to all, or would it?
---
If you wish to add any of the myriad traits that various claims exist for you would have to find ways to test the validity of those traits. Many if not most people rely upon trusting a source for this purpose. Like you, that is not a method I consider sufficiently convincing. Thus those sources, such as the bible, only provide claims to be tested. The claim with the most obvious testability is prayer. The results of such a test would be subjective as the only possible controls would be internal to the mind of the tester.
You would have to design, execute and evaluate your own test. Thus the results would also apply only to your own belief.
---
"This is disingenuous. You have already established the fact that you believe in this being...and that you even go one step further and see that being the in context on one, specific religion...i.e. the Christian one. Also, it seems in any case unreasonable to suggest that one could honestly appeal to these alleged anthropomorphic qualities without believing that they exist."
You may want to review the blog. I specifically state "I do not intend to prove to an atheist that there is a God, nor do I wish to show why any certain God is better than any other." How "disingenuous" can it be to stick to the intent I laid out? You use the word 'god' with no problem maintaining disbelief. If you wished to 'appeal' to God through prayer in that state I would suggest you preface your appeal with 'If you do exist" or some similar qualifier, though the choice to not bother appealing at all is also present for you.
---
"A subsequent conclusion based on logical argument is not where this is going. Logic leads to proof, or nowhere. In any case where you lack sufficient facts it is the later."
How do think that 'logical fallacy' exists when I say logical argument is not the intent, and will not be forthcoming? You too are not required to prove anything, or disprove anything. Trying to prove the existence of God, especially in a tightly defined religious sense, is the logic that I am saying would lead nowhere due to lack of evidence. You seem to be trying too hard to discredit some argument that nobody is making.
---
One thing from your profile intrigues me. You say that you were raised in a Christian family and school, and then became an ordained Wiccan priest before becoming an atheist. Were you converted by a more compelling theology to join Wicca, or was it a reaction to rejecting Christian teachings? Do you still hold some Wicca views, or have you abandoned those altogether?
I rejected religion and became an atheist, then switched to agnostic because I felt it was more argumentatively defensible, and now Love God as the result of changing my presuppositions of who God is, and reading the bible more as a parable than a history. Experimentation with prayer has convinced me, but to pretend that 'logic' has 'proved' anything to do with this subject would be ridiculous IMHO.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The one that you wish to "test." You said, "First we test, then we trust." The only valid tests are one's that present a falsifiable option. A properly constructed test has to test something, and in the context of an intellectual discussion, that would (typically speaking) refer to a hypothesis of some sort.
Unfortunately, that ommission fundamenally changes the nature of the definition at hand. Webster's doesn't define "god" as "the supreme or ultimate reality" in any general sense. Rather, it notes that this phrase only applies in two very specific contexts, i.e. when the context of the definition refers to a "Being" that is "perfect in power, wisdom and goodness," or who is "worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." Your attempt to remove the necessary contexts which define the term is disingenous. If you want to use the term "god" accurately, those connotations are part of the meaning that defines that term.
I am sorry, but it isn't my responsibility to come up with a test to prove your claims.
Your evasion in this case is disingenuous, because you are attempting to avoid the necessary first premise upon which all of your subsequent arguments are based. In a debate, you don't get to arbitrarily exclude avenues of inquiry simply because those lines lead to a point that damages your position.
The fact that your argument uses a logical fallacy is an indication of its irrational underpinnings. Whether you want to make a logical argument isn't really the point. Logic is the study of the rational argumentation. If your argument lacks logic, then your argument is poorly constructed.
"Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration."
A little of both. Perhaps I will write a blog on it.
As a philosophy, yes...I still hold some wiccan views, but as a religion no...I have rejected those beliefs entirely.
I think I have asked you before, but just in case I will do so again now. What "experiments" have you attempted with "prayer" that have convinced you of your current beliefs? I seriously doubt that anything you could explain to us would even approach the level of a reasonably valid test.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"it isn't my responsibility to come up with a test to prove your claims."
No, just any that you feel are needed to verify your own. Thus test, hypothesis and results are personal to each interested party. As far as I can tell you do not know what my 'claims' are.
---
"worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." is an interesting secondary part of the first definition. Wouldn't the "creator and ruler of the universe" portion of that equate to the natural laws that fulfill(ed) those roles? 'Worship' seems to have at least as many meanings as 'god' and seems to create a bit too much confusion to be helpful to a common definition. "spirit", "Divine", and "infinite Mind" all seem at least a little more universal.
---
"Your attempt to remove the necessary contexts which define the term is disingenous. If you want to use the term "god" accurately, those connotations are part of the meaning that defines that term."
"disingenous" implies an attempt to mislead. That isn't my intention, but you seem to think I'm trying to 'win' here. Perhaps I am if winning means having a more comprehensive meaning for the word.
---
"In a debate, you don't get to arbitrarily exclude avenues of inquiry simply because those lines lead to a point that damages your position."
What debate?
---
"The fact that your argument uses a logical fallacy is an indication of its irrational underpinnings."
What argument?
---
"I think I have asked you before, but just in case I will do so again now. What "experiments" have you attempted with "prayer" that have convinced you of your current beliefs? I seriously doubt that anything you could explain to us would even approach the level of a reasonably valid test."
I don't remember you asking, but I'll gladly answer as best I can. As I said earlier any experiments YOU conduct are important only to your understanding.
The first thing would be considering the source of your knowledge, in my case the bible, in light of the fact that you simply do not know much of anything about God, and most of what you think you know is probably wrong. In my own case simplifying the definition down to a very basic one as I suggest here is how I began. This was needed mainly because I did not believe in any more complex being with anthromorphic qualities as a God. You seem to be struggling with this, but perhaps that is simply due to not seeing the point behind it.
The word god is used in the bible in more than one phrase and context. Reducing the definition to one that you believe is a first step to reading those references in a less sceptical mind set (do you even want to try?). There is a large amount that is valid if you can simply substitute the word 'truth' in place of the one with all those centuries of superstition added to its meaning. Jesus and Psalms/Proverbs hold their meaning especially well with that substitution. Taoism is another religion that seems even more compatable with this technique.
Prayer, if directed toward your best understanding of the universe, is almost identical to meditation. The next step of experimentation that I tried was prayer. Early on that was less than convincing, but after reviewing the basics such as fasting and Ascetic or selfless quiescence the results became more startling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting
Something that is a revalation to me may be old hat to you, or you may not have any interest in the process or results you may find. Not looking is a valid option, but then you lack some point of reference to understand the 'spiritual' discussion you seem to enjoy engaging in.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Well, it isn't really a "test" in the empirical sense unless your results can be independently reproduced and/or verified. You may feel that your position is quite mysterious, but in reality your basic assertions are pain and frankly rather typical. You have posited the existence of an anthropomorphized entity, which you call "God," in the specific context of the concepts of the christian religion, modified slightly with a dose of agnostic pantheism. Your "hypothesis" or "premise" (depending on which avenue you wish to take to demonstrate the truth-value of your argument) is that this being actually exists. The only truly complex component of your presentation is the obscene level of obscurement in which you engage in order to hide the faulty reasoning which underlies the whole mess.
No, and for several reasons: Scientific Laws do not "create and rule" in the sense that those terms are used in the definition at hand, as Scientific Laws do not appear under any circumstance to possess the intelligence necessary to perform either of these functions. Such Laws are simply an observation of consistently predictable processes. I say, "Scientific Laws," because "natural law" is a concept in philosophy that refers specifically to socio-political constructions, and not to kinds of universal phenomenon that would satisfy your example.
How so? ALL religions represent a form of worship, and your particular brand of that product seems no different in that regard. The idea of worship is central to the meaning of the term "god," and your elimination would once again fundamentally alter the nature of the term.
There is no evidence that "spirit" exists.
There is no evidence that the "Divine" exists.
There is no evidence that an "infinite Mind" exists.
These are all religious concepts. All of them are speculative, subjective and unsupported by any evidence.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I have watched your arguments evolve over many discussions, and if you think your presentations are not competitive in nature, you need to do a little self-evaluation. And, I do think you are attempting to mislead...not from a malicious motivation I suspect, but rather because you want so badly for your beliefs to be correct that you attempt not only to omit but to actively preclude discussions along lines that contradict your claims.
Sigh...you and I are debating, right now. It is not a formal debate, to be sure...but you are presenting an argument, I am rebutting, and you are attempting to counter that rebuttal. Honestly, this is the kind of comment that leads me to the accusation of disingenuity. I know you aren't stupid, chillbill, and it really is sad when you pretend to be so. It is a rather classic example of the psychological aloof drama, which I suppose I tend to precipitate though my use of interrogative techniques.
Again, please don't play dumb, or I will be forced to treat you as if you are. Argument is a form of "discourse intended to persuade."
The bible is not an objective source. It is demonstrably flawed on a factual level, and in fact contradicts itself in many places. That is, if you can even successfully determine which of the radically disparate cannons of the various christian sects actually constitutes "the bible" to begin with. Such a source does not provide a valid source for experimentation.
The word god is used in the bible in more than one phrase and context.
I can only think of two contexts that are legitimately associated with the term "god" in the books typically referred to as "the bible." One (and this is by far the most common), refers to the "God of Abraham"...a specific being, fully anthropomorphized and worshipped in a religious context. The other would be "god" in the sense of worshipping other "god's," which the book considers to be a punishable act.
Why would I want to "try" to think irrationally?
The problem is that the meaning you are replacing here are not consistent with the actual intent of the authors of those words. Your hoop-jumping machinations are just a desperate attempt to retro-fit your preferred religious beliefs into a reality that does not otherwise support your need to believe in these fantasies.
The act of prayer can produce a meditative state, I do not doubt...however there is one MAJOR difference between prayer and meditation. Meditation is a mental act that focuses the intelligence inward on the actor, while prayer by necessity is an appeal to a result from an outside intelligence.
In my many years as a priest, I engaged in quite a bit of prayer and meditation, thank you. It was a useful psychological tool, but ultimately I found it to lack any objective benefit. I must also point out that nothing you have described here indicates that you made any effort at all to actually "test" your beliefs. But then, that was a foregone conclusion, I suppose...
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Well, it isn't really a "test" in the empirical sense unless your results can be independently reproduced and/or verified. You may feel that your position is quite mysterious, but in reality your basic assertions are pain and frankly rather typical."
Yes, you are right. This is not a subject that will ever lend itself to independant verification. I was not trying to be mysterious, now or then, the results I found are typical, and have been acheived by most if not all that tried the same thing for thousands of years, in many different cultures. Outside of personal experience you will not find what you seek regarding the subject at hand.
---
"You have posited the existence of an anthropomorphized entity"
Please reread. It is getting tiring repeating myself. You have this 100% WRONG which is the basis for the generalization you drivel out in the rest of the paragraph. As you know a bad initial premise renders the rest of your conclusions invalid.
You are the only one here insisting on any type of imaginary or superstitious being.
---
"Scientific Laws do not "create and rule" in the sense that those terms are used in the definition at hand, as Scientific Laws do not appear under any circumstance to possess the intelligence necessary to perform either of these functions."
One of the subtle differences in you reading and my writing is the substitution of 'Scientific' and 'natural.' Natural laws are all of the governing forces AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Scientific laws are only our best current understanding of natural laws. One of the two changes, at least slightly, every day the other is often hidden, but present whether we see it or not. Some part of the natural laws is how this universe came to be (science does not know how), and all of it does in fact 'rule' this universe.
"I say, "Scientific Laws," because "natural law" is a concept in philosophy that refers specifically to socio-political constructions, and not to kinds of universal phenomenon that would satisfy your example."
That is only one meaning, and is derived from the one I am using. I comiserate with you in desiring one definition per term, but alas we are speaking english.
A good summary of how the legal meaning evolved from the original:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Legal definition of science includes natural laws:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/28/6104
Even Atheists use this context:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/evil_laws.html
---
"How so? ALL religions represent a form of worship"
"a form of " as in many forms. There is a very large diference between 'love' and 'the blood of a baby goat.'
---
Argument, dabate....
I suppose by making the definition more inclusive of every religion I am trying to persuade you to be more open minded to what the word may mean. I would also like to dispel some of the hostility that an adversarial position creates especially if it is misunderstanding that creates it. No one that is religious thinks that their religion is superstition, while you appear to think they all are. Someone certainly missunderstands in that case.
---
"The bible is not an objective source."
Who said it was? I am saying that if you read certain portions with a specific word/meaning substitution the statements make more sense to me. I also note that other sections this does not work on. Fight it, fight it do not even read the words!
---
"I can only think of two contexts..."
More than those two:
"In the begining was the word and the word was god"
"God is a God of truth"
"Jesus is the truth"
""I am the way, the truth, and the life."
"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."
The identity as the truth is not hard to see. If you make that the assumed meaning rather than some imaginary being you get a different read. I cannot say that that interpretation is crucial to further understanding for you, but it was for me.
---
Why would I want to "try" to think irrationally?
I knew that answer was 'no' before I asked. I can't help you overcome the irrational thinking you think of as rational if you can't read since that is the medium we share. You were asked to substitute one definition for another and then read. Any thinking would be done to your best abilities, and if you are unwilling or unable to suspend your misunderstanding for long enough to consider other possibilities then those abilities should be suspect.
---
"actually "test" your beliefs."
Again, what beliefs? The tests changed some of my understanding and belief which is often what happens when you are objective.
"There is no god higher than truth"
Mahatma Gandhi
I'll answer you, below.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
oops.
If this is the case, then your appeals to the "tests" you have performed seem to lack any actual merit as a point of discussion.
I was not trying to be mysterious, now or then, the results I found are typical, and have been acheived by most if not all that tried the same thing for thousands of years, in many different cultures. Outside of personal experience you will not find what you seek regarding the subject at hand.
1) What credible, objective evidence do you have that the "results" that you claim to have found have actually been replicated by even one other person? (Hint: The answer is "none.")
2) An appeal to to the poplarity of theistic beliefs is a logically fallacy.
3) Anecdotal evidence is not a valid butress for logical arguments, and tend to lead to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as yours has here.
Horsepuckey. You would LIKE to remove the anthropomorphized terminology from your argument, but the essense of your beliefs quite obviously still rely on that presumption. No matter how you slice it, use of the term "god" implies this premise. THAT's why your redefinitional argument is so problematic and prone to fallacy.
A subtle fallacy is still a fallacy, and just as your misuse of the term "god" adds confusion to your argument, your use of the term "natural law" tends to follow the philosophical structure to which this phrase normally refers. The reason that your example fails to work is that your religious corruption of the concept of universal Laws requires the addition of guiding intelligence for which there is no actual, objective evidence.
True, but when one considers that the entire thrust of your position is an attempt to overlay a religious philosophy over the "natural" sciences, it seems the most contextually correct definition to use.
Yes, there are differences...but there is an underlying similarity as well, and that is the direction of "worship" in the religious sense, i.e. the belief that the act is based around a reverence for a "higher" being.
Words in the English language are defined by common useage. Your useage is relative novel, and includes elements which fundamentally alter the normal meaning of the terms in question. I would be far more willing to consider your re-definition of these terms, IF they were based on a meaningful shift in the common useage. However, what we have here is actually an attempt to deprive words of their understood meaning simply in your hope that by doing so your otherwise irrational ideas can be couched in more rational terms.
The fact that "No one that is religious thinks that their religion is superstition" is actually a very good example of why I think that all religions are based on superstition, supported by the fact that there are a vast number of religions on this planet, all of which contradict each other on at least one (and usually quite a few more) significant doctrinal belief(s). My evaluation of religion is very simple, and based on the same standards of credibility and evidence that I expect from any rational assertion. I have discussed religion with many different people, in many different forums and contexts. And without exception, the arguments of theism rely on the willingness of its audience to suspend the normal standards of rational thought that would otherwise govern their decision to accept or reject the information being offered. In this, your presentation here is no different.
If you don't consider the source objective, why would you offer it up for consideration...especially to someone who like myself is known to be insistent in that regard?
As you well know, I am one of the probably very few members of ProU who has actually read the common cannons of "the bible," and one of the even fewer who have actually studied those texts both in a religious and a scholarly context. If you would like to test our relative knowledge of the contents of that (to quote Thomas Jefferson) "dunghill," by all means knock yourself out. If you plan, however, to do as you suggest and to substitute your own invented meanings to replace what was actually written and intended by the original authors, you will once again find me rather implacable.
John 1:1 uses the Greek theos, which according to Strong's Concordance may refer to "a general name of deities or divinities," but in this context refers to "the Godhead, trinity a) God the Father, b) Christ, c) Holy Spirit." This is a direct reference to the "God of Abraham," which is the only "god" that the various bible cannons refer to as an object of worship.
I'm guessing that this was meant to be a reference to Deuteronomy 32:4, in which case the word translated to mean "god" here is 'el, a term that in context refers to "God, the one true God, Jehovah" (again according to Stong's Concordance).
None of these actually refer to the term "god," so they don't seem to support your previous assertion.
It only seems easy to see for you because your interpretations rely on some pretty significant alterations from the intent presented in the texts' original languages. You certainly have a very creative mind, chillbill, but your presentation lacks the serious scholarly basis that would be necessesary to credibly argue for the positions you prefer.
That's really a rather laughable rebuttal, considering that it is I and not you who seems to have a solid command of the actual terminology at hand. Perhaps if you are one day able to reconcile your creativity with the actual English language (not to mention the disciplines of logical and empirical thought), we might be able to discuss this topic in a more meaningful manner. As I have pointed out before, your desire to redefine these terms is a rather transparent tactic...one that hopes to eliminate by fiat the gaping holes in your arguments.
The first is quite obviously your belief in supernatural beings (which is the correct term for what you propose, despite your smarmy attempts to "redefine" that element out of consideration).
And I will ask you again...what "tests" did you perform? By your own admission, "This is not a subject that will ever lend itself to independant verification," which leads me to doubt that you have actually "tested" your beliefs in any truly meaningful way. Based on the evasiveness of your answer, I think it is safe at this point to assume that your "tests" have been just as flimsy as the rest of your argument.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Although I feel confident you can still find something to misconstrue.
" 1) What credible, objective evidence do you have that the "results" that you claim to have found have actually been replicated by even one other person? (Hint: The answer is "none.")"
Their testimony is enough to qualify as credible evidence to me, because I have seen it personally as well. ANY experience you or anyone could have would also not PROVE anything about God. If an experiment could be objective evidence, as you keep asking for, why not suggest its' design?
“2) An appeal to to the poplarity of theistic beliefs is a logically fallacy.”
The referenced experience is an experience, not a belief. A belief could be supported by experience, but many who have not shared these experiences also believe. Like many things that can be related to each other they are not interdependent.
“3) Anecdotal evidence is not a valid butress for logical arguments, and tend to lead to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as yours has here.”
Yes, you have made it clear. By the only rules you accept your position needs no proof, and any other MUST be proven. How perfectly and circularly unassailiable. I am very proud of you, but I can't help but laugh at how illogical (Argumentum in Circulo) you are. You know nothing, but are perfectly right. That is the trap that makes being an Atheist less defensible than agnosticism which admits lack of any evidence only shows that you don't know.
---
"You would LIKE to remove the anthropomorphized terminology from your argument, but the essense of your beliefs quite obviously still rely on that presumption. No matter how you slice it, use of the term "god" implies this premise...”
Thank you for once again trying to tell me what I believe. BTW you are once again 100% incorrect, as you will be every time you make the same vain arrogant pronouncement. I understand that you want to debate that point, but since I do not hold it perhaps it would be less obnoxious to address it with someone that holds that opinion.
---
"The reason that your example fails to work is that your religious corruption of the concept of universal Laws requires the addition of guiding intelligence...
In what way are universal laws NOT omnipotent?
---
"Words in the English language are defined by common useage. Your useage is relative novel, and includes elements which fundamentally alter the normal meaning of the terms in question. I would be far more willing to consider your re-definition of these terms, IF they were based on a meaningful shift in the common useage."
The precise meaning I am proposing is IDENTICAL to a 1600 year old definition of the same word by St, Augustine. He goes on to 'prove' his version, which is an interesting read, but reveals nothing but the consistency of the definition. To quote someone that you respect greatly "An appeal to to the poplarity of theistic beliefs is a logically fallacy." The thoughts of the masses verify your argument and discredit mine. How consistently thou doth debate.
http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentexisten_rbxj.htm
---
"My evaluation of religion is very simple, and based on the same standards of credibility and evidence that I expect from any rational assertion."
Your evaluation is important to you, but maybe no one else. Since every single individual has different beliefs, and you willfully do not listen to what they are, you are a poor evaluator. Have you ever noticed how 'very simple' generalizations of complicated things are always wrong?
---
RE: The Bible "If you don't consider the source objective, why would you offer it up for consideration...especially to someone who like myself is known to be insistent in that regard?"
Each claim either stands or falls on its own. How many different original authors, and then how many edits do you think it went through? Why do you insist on such a false dichotomy to this? Every book has mistakes, but many still have some valid info.
---
"intended by the original authors..."
Your proof of this intent is? Please come up with something more convincing than what you think people you consider fundamentally wrong assume they meant.
---
"The first is quite obviously your belief in supernatural beings"
Why don't you lie about what I believe again? Maybe if you persist you can 'convert' me. I really get a good laugh from that level of shrill desperation. Have you ever heard of a 'straw man' fallacy?
Why must you lie? Can you be honest, even with yourself?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I can only respond to the words that you actually write. If your ideas are poorly expressed, it may indeed seem that your ideas have been "misconstrued."
The "testimony" of third parties (which conveniently cannot be cross-examined for verity) is commonly known as "hearsay," and is rarely admissible in any reasonable court proceeding. Since you say that you have "seen it personally as well," we can however start there. If you admit that experiences of this sort don't "PROVE anything about God," then why do you present them as "evidence" for your beliefs? I would suggest ithat if YOU cannot relate to us YOUR experience in a manner that a reasonably objective person could objectively construe as credible, that the other testimonies to which you refer are likely flawed in a similar manner.
If you do not believe the "experience" in question to be true, then it seems rather pointless of you to pursue conclusions that rely on that presumption with such vigor. In fact, I would have to question your honesty if you in fact suggested any such thing.
Can you point to any statement in which I have suggested that I KNOW that there is no "god?" I have stated that I have seen no evidence of that or any other supernatural being, but I am always very careful to avoid taking the irrational leap that you suggest. As for the "ciruclar" nature of MY arguments, I would suggest that if you find my objections to your reasoning to be arcane, then perhaps you need to actually take a class on logic at your local university. Your arguments are rife with the very sort of errors that often plague the poorly educated, and without any real exposure to the discipline of logic, it is no wonder that you buck at the bridle with which it confines you.
Horsepuckey. You wish to obscure the premise in your argument, but it is stronly implied and in fact necessary to the illogical leaps that you make.
In what way are universal laws NOT omnipotent?
As is often the case with your comments, the term simply does not apply. The term omnipotent can mean, "1often capitalized : almighty 1*[1often capitalized : having absolute power over all ]". or it can mean "2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence ". BOTH of these defintions imply an underlying intelligent being that motivates that power. Again, your assumptions overreach your evidence.
Well, thank you for FINALLY admitting that you are getting all of this crap from a purely religious source (and a remarkably ancient one). I mean, SAINT Augustine? Seriously, dude. Augustine's arguments are pure theology, and like all theological arguments fail when it comes time to "prove" anything at all. And, the common useage of the English language has come a LONG way in the last 1600 years, in case you haven't noticed. If you look any good modern dictionary, you will often find reference to definitions that are "archaic." Yours fails to meet even THAT criteria, since we know that Augustine's use of the term spoke very much to a anthropomorphic deity.
Ah, but unlike you, I do not appeal to the masses for support. I make my case based on its merits, thus eliminating the error to which you so often find yourself prone.
That is for our readers to decide, not I.
I would suggest that I am applying a more rigorous level of evaluation to your beliefs than you are used, and I am simply extracting the necessary implied premises from the facade of your arguments.
Then please, by all means pick ONE such claim from the bible that you think A) supports your point-of-view and B) can stand on its own when subjected to rigorous examination.
MANY...which is part of the reason that these books lack credibility.
Again, please pick even ONE such example of "valid info" from the bible that actually supports your point-of-view, and which can stand up to close examination.
A close study of the original language in the texts (or as close as we can come to it through surviving historical sources), measured against the study of the cultural history of the regions in which these books were written reveals much about the beliefs of the earliest biblical authors. There is a wealth of scholarly evidence that supports this, your ignorance of which is really quite laughable under the circumstances.
Despite your desire to white-wash the supernatural elements out of your position, the handprints are still on the wall, peeking out from behind the paint. You don't like the term "supernatural" being applied to your beliefs, but that is nonetheless the appropriate term in the English language to describe a belief in anthropomorphic beings such as the "god" you have described. If anyone is lying here, it is you to yourself.
TTFN
percivale
-------------------------
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The "testimony" of third parties"
To me it is first hand experience, and it could be for you as well.
"If you admit that experiences of this sort don't "PROVE anything about God," then why do you present them as "evidence" for your beliefs?"
You ask for evidence, I deny that such is possible. You ask again. Disingenuous, what else could it be?
---
" I would suggest ithat if YOU cannot relate to us YOUR experience in a manner that a reasonably objective person could objectively construe as credible, that the other testimonies to which you refer are likely flawed in a similar manner."
What could possibly convince you? I think you have made it quite clear that any testamony is beneath your standard for objective evidence. Am I misunderstanding that?
Additionally I cannot imagine any result of any experiment that you would accept as objective evidence. If there is a scenario that you would accept please give the example. In your case denial is perfectly complete and unassailiable. Is evidence of the sort you claim that I lack even possible? If so provide the example or quit using that falacious and meaningless demand. You could just post insults and accusations of illogical thought without quoting the specifics, and save half of your typing.
---
"BOTH of these defintions imply an underlying intelligent being that motivates that power. Again, your assumptions overreach your evidence."
You might look up the words implication and assumption and note the differences so you do not use them as synonyms again. You are avoiding the question so I assume that if you answered you would have to admit that universal laws are omnipotent. Nothing supernatural exists, and never has, everthing that does exist is a part of nature. Insisting on some imaginary being makes you look a bit foolish. None of the definitions of omnipotent require it, nor do I.
---
"Augustine's use of the term spoke very much to a anthropomorphic deity"
You should read it again. You are reading that into his definition. Assumption is a poor replacement for simply listening to the words used.
---
"Ah, but unlike you, I do not appeal to the masses for support."
""Words in the English language are defined by common useage"
Yes the masses and the most common usage are unrelated, my mistake. How could I have thought you were trying to have it both ways. LOL!
---
"I am simply extracting the necessary implied premises from the facade of your arguments."
Yes, reading into them what you wish even though it is unsaid, and denied. Perhaps ASKING is beyond your ability, and assuming is all you are capable of.
---
"Then please, by all means pick ONE such claim from the bible that you think A) supports your point-of-view and B) can stand on its own when subjected to rigorous examination. "
"I am the truth."
"I am the alpha and the omega (begining and the end)"
There are dozens of others that are at least as clear, but you seem to like everything except sticking to a discussion of the issues involved so just tell me how those two statements are inconsistent to a understanding that the charachter they are atributed to being the entire universe and all of its laws. Narrowing the focus may help if you can do it.
---
'You don't like the term "supernatural" '
No I don't it is a term I consider meaningless. Everything is within nature. As an accusation by you it is a laughable red herring. Not even vaguely related to the topic at hand. Move on from it if you wish to actually have anything but an insult contest. You make yourself look like a fool with it. Except an attempt to incite me what is the point?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
How do YOU define "first hand experience?" I ask because there is nothing in "the bible" that can be reasonably attributed to meet that standard as it would normally be applied.
It could be (and is in fact) an attempt to demonstrate the fallacious basis of your claims. The utter lack of evidence is very telling, and renders your point-of-view to the corral of pure speculation.
As is usual, yes...you are "misunderstanding" it. Testimony is credible when it can be cooborated, cross-examined and objectvely verified. Appealing to the "testimony" of anonymous, misattributed, error-prone and in many cases purely fictional sources isn't going to help you carry your point. That is why I asked you for YOUR "testimony." If you would explain to us the "tests" that you performed, the results you experienced, and the steps you took to objectively verify your conclusions, I might be more prone listen. However, when you blatantly evade the onerous task of exposing your research to critical examination, you destroy any hope of having your opinions be viewed as credible.
I am sorry, but it still isn't my responsbility to provide YOU with the evidence to support YOUR arguments. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and only further damages your claim. If YOU can't come up with an objective experiment, then YOUR beliefs are not well thought out. The reason my rebuttals (not "denials") of your irrational positon is "unassailable" due to the fact that it is based in Logic, whereas yours is based on an ignorance of the same.
If the "god" that you speak of is as "real" as you claim, then yes, I would expect it to be completely possible to provide evidence to support your belief.
If you dislike my manner of response, you may feel free to quit the field at your leisure. I would suggest, however, that there are numerous tests that could produce the desired evidence, if the premise of your arguments were valid. Here is a blog that examines four such studies...
Scientific Studies of the Effectiveness of Intercessory Prayer
I didn't use them as synonyms. I referenced the implied premise in your argument and noted that the basis for that premise was assumed. The technical term for it is an enthymeme.
How is it "avoiding the question" to note that the question itself lacks the rational basis that would make it possible to answer intelligently? Your question has no more meaning than if you had asked, "What kind of cheese is the Moon made of?" Unless you can demonstrate some objective reason for us to presume that universal laws are intelligent, then your question is based (as is the rest of your argument) on an illogical premise. There is absolutely nothing that you can do to make your conclusions sound, until you first address the gaping hole in the first implied premise of your argument.
Ahem...
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." ~ Augustine of Hippo (translated from DE GENESI AD LITTERAM LIBRI DUODECIM)
To suggest that SAINT Augustine did not defend the idea of an athromorporphic deity, and specifcally the personified concept of deity belonging to the christian religion is a rather rediculous thing to suggest. As is so often the case with overly-religious modern folks, you seem to be projecting the meaning you WISH was present in order to retrofit your beliefs into your preferred religion's classical framework.
Cross-examination of your arguments have demonstrated that your denials in this case are (perhaps unintentionally) fabricated. Your arguments are based on the same basic premise as ALL theistic philosophy. But, because that premise is so rediculous, you have attempted (unsuccessfully)
Both of these statments are written from the point of view of an anthopomorphic entity, referred to as "I." What objective support can you provide for us that would indicate that the "I" in these statements was uttered or written by the "god" who is the implied speaker in these statements? What sort of test or evidence can you provide to us to that would demonstrate the truth-value of these statements? Once again, the statements you provide are illogically based on the first necessary premise of your argument, i.e. the circular assumption that this "god" fellow actually exists. These are the kinds of questions that make up a "rigorous examination," and which demonstrate the fallacy behind your position.
You might consider it meaningless--and I think that you denial in this case is nothing more than a game of semantic evasion--but the term as it is commonly defined very accurately describes the beliefs you have described for us. Unless you can provide us with some sort of actual, objective evidence in the natural world that supports your beliefs, then I think the common defintional context of that word is perfectly applicable to your presentation.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"How do YOU define "first hand experience?" I ask because there is nothing in "the bible" that can be reasonably attributed to meet that standard as it would normally be applied."
For me things that I personally experience are first hand. What that has to do with a book compiled 1700 years ago you will have to explain to me because I see no connection.
---
I'll keep adding clarification until you can abandon your imaginary enemies and answer the question:
You are avoiding the question so I assume that if you answered you would have to admit that universal laws with or without direction are omnipotent. Nothing supernatural exists, and never has, everthing that does exist is a part of nature. Insisting on some imaginary being makes you look a bit foolish. None of the definitions of omnipotent require it, nor do I.
---
"Both of these statments are written from the point of view of an anthopomorphic entity, referred to as "I." What objective support can you provide for us that would indicate that the "I" in these statements was uttered or written by the "god" who is the implied speaker in these statements?
I do not make that claim, so I see no need to support it. The person that did write it was speaking for a thing (please note that this thing need not be able to speak for itself) which could be identical to the universe and all of its' laws.
---
"What sort of test or evidence can you provide to us to that would demonstrate the truth-value of these statements?"
If you do not insist on a 'being' it is just an example of how the 'deity' being described could be as easily called God, the Truth, Nature, The Universe, Dao (the way) or any other all encompassing term. Only one of those terms implies the bearded guy on a cloud to anyone, yet in these two statements they are the same.
---
"assumption that this "god" fellow actually exists."
By you alone, in this conversation. Why must you insist on a fellow? Many religions make do with yin and yang, the dao, or just objective facts. Why is the truth too horrible for you to face without bringing up a fantasy?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
The only "testimony" that you have offered us in defense are statements taken from the bible, and few if any of those statements can be credibly attributed to any "first hand" witness of the alledged supernatural events described in those books. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide us with something more specific regarding your own experiences (which you continue to evade). As ususal, your appeals are based on information that is kept conveniently out of the reach of any attempt to objectively examine their substance or credibility. This on-going evasion is demonstrative of the intellectual vacuity behind your point-of-view.
I agree that nothing supernatual exists (or at least that I have never seen any evidence that would lead me to think otherwise), but the fact remains that you entire argument relies upon a belief in supernatural entities. Your repeated use of the term "god" throughout your presentation makes this point inescapable. And, you are incorrect in your assertion that the definitions of omnipotent do not require an underlying intelligent being.
Websters gives us three definitions of omnipotent.
1 often capitalized : almighty 1
This defintion specifically directs you towads the first defintion of the word almighty in order to set its context. That defintion, of course, is "1often capitalized : having absolute power over all "...in other words it has a specfic religious context and refers specifically to the power of an supernatural entity, i.e. "God."
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence
This second definition also refers specifically to the authority or influence of an intelligent being, as in a "ruler."
3 obsolete : arrant
The third defintion is obsolete, and refers to "being notoriously without moderation," which doesn't seem to apply in any case, though it too only applies in situations where there is a being making actual choices about his or her own actions. Thus...in spite of your denials, these definitions do in fact rely in every case on an underlying intelligent being.
That's a rather smarmy response, in my opinion. You offered these statements in defense of your position, and now that they have failed to do so, you are trying to dance away from them. The disingenuity of your argument knows no bounds, it seems.
Did you ever watch the show, Sesame Street? The like to play a game on that show called, "One of these things is not like the other." In this case, truth, nature, the universe are all relatively neutral terms (though it can be argumed that "Truth" is often a subjective experience), while "God" and "Dao" (or "Tao") each include an additional element to their meanings that is not present in the other three, that being a specific appeal towards a belief in supernatural entitiies. At ever turn, you are attempting to insert an additional and purely religious context onto the nature of reality that unlike the rest cannot be objectively defended. This is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, and it poisons all of your conclusions.
Yin/Yang is not a religion. It is a philosophical concept that describes opposites. The Tao, however, does in fact rely on a belief in supernatural beings, not necessarily limited to but in a historical context originating from the traditional Chineese creation story and its belief in a "first being" (i.e. Xuanxuan Shangren). If you have any "objective facts" for us to review, now would be the time to provide them. I have asked you for data of that sort repeatedly, and despite your incessant appeals to those "facts," you seem remarkably unable to actually produce one.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The only "testimony" that you have offered us in defense are statements taken from the bible, and few if any of those statements can be credibly attributed to any "first hand" witness of the alledged supernatural events described in those books."
Ah! you are paying a little attention. Correct I have not specifically made any claim or representation here. I'm here to present a definition for a word that would be acceptable to as broad a cross section of people as possible. So far only atheists are objecting, and from the little sense I can make out of your accusations and attempts to change the subject you just do not want to allow any definition unless it is clearly superstitious. That definition would be unacceptable to ~90% of the world, so I'm afraid accomadating you would defeat my purpose.
---
"I have asked repeatedly for you to provide us with something more specific regarding your own experiences (which you continue to evade)."
Personal religious testamony is beyond the scope of this blog. If I write one on that I'll PM you to let you know, or if you write one I'll try to be sure and comment.
---
"I agree that nothing supernatual exists (or at least that I have never seen any evidence that would lead me to think otherwise), but the fact remains that you entire argument relies upon a belief in supernatural entities."
So we agree about supernatural things, except that I seem to be much firmer in my position. This equivocation of yours that there might be some supernatural thing(s) you have never seen may be why you keep asking me about the ones you seem to think I've seen. You will have to look elsewhere because, though I have seen things that I was awestruck by, they and anything else I ever see will all be a part of nature. Perhaps my definition of nature is broader than yours.
---
"Your repeated use of the term "god" throughout your presentation makes this point inescapable."
Just brush it off and look at it with an open mind. You CAN escape your preconceptions. You have before, you can again. Keep a young outlook.
---
"in other words it has a specfic religious context"
If you have to use 'other words' the original words were not 'specific' enough to say what you wish to pretend they say.
---
"2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence
'This second definition also refers specifically to the authority or influence of an intelligent being, as in a "ruler." ' "
Who ADDED the words 'an intelligent being, as in a "ruler." ' Was that you? Not the dictionary at all. We should call it Percispeak in your honor.
---
"3 obsolete : arrant
'The third defintion is obsolete, and refers to "being notoriously without moderation," which doesn't seem to apply in any case, though it too only applies in situations where there is a being making actual choices about his or her own actions.' "
There is nothing more notoriously extreme, implacable, and 'without moderation' than the cold hard facts. These beings you like to insist on might be moderate, the facts never are.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
...you should at least look them up.
I would suggest that the words that you are attempting to redefine are already understood by the broadest possible cross-section of people. The only reason that I see for your dissembling is an attempt to insert elements into the already existing definitions that pre-emptively justify the conclusions that you wish to reach with your arguments. Basically, you are trying to establish an objective credibility for your religiously beliefs, in order that you may discuss them without having to actually provide any substantive basis for them.
I would suggest that if "90% of the world" agreed with the beliefs you have suggested, then it would not be necessary for you to attempt to redefine the base terms of this discussion as you have.
In other words, you already know (as we do) that exposing this "testimony" to rigorus scrutiny would not result in adding any more credibility to your position. Your aloof references to conviently off-the-table sources only reinforces the appearace of falsity in your claims.
Indeed. A rational person is always willing (as I am) to reconsider his opinions if and when he is confronted with new evidence. All I have asked you to do is to provide that evidence so that I may reconsider my positon accordingly. You are indeed "firm" in your opinions, but what you fail to recognize is that stubbornly clinging to a belief in spite of the evidence is not a position that leads rational people to respect your point-of-view.
What equivocation? I have stated clearly that I have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe in supernatural beings or forces, but that I am open to the experiece should you (or anyone else) be able to actually put-their-money-where-there-mouth-is and actually provide me with a substantive reason to reconsider my stance. Is that really such an unreasonble thing to ask? I think not.
As for your defintion of "nature," I would suggest that if that "definition" includes the subjective, unobservable and untestible claims of purely religious beliefs, then you aren't defning the term "nature" in a manner that any reasonable person who has ever read a dictionary could accept without suspending the normal connotations of that word in th English language.
Having an open mind doesn't mean that one should think like an idiot. The term "god" is purely and in every reasonable context a religous term. The term inherently refers to the concept of the supernatural, and as such does not and in fact cannot apply in a rational discussion of objective reality and the natural world.
Unfortunately (for you), the connotations of words are just as much a part of their meanings as their literal definitions. This shell game that you are playing is really all about the connotations of words that do not normally apply to these subjects in question, but which you wish to insert into the discussion in order to build a support for your desired conclusions.
You really need to learn how to use a dictionary, dude. The exactly quoted second defintion of omnipotent from Webster's is this:
"2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence omnipotent ruler>"
The phrase framed by the chevrons provides you with the contextual sense in which that particular defintion applies. Your frank unfamiliarity with the English language only further confounds your expression. Before you embark on a campaign to redefine the basic terminology of an argument, you might first want to learn how words in the English langauge are defined, and what those terms already mean.
A clever response, to be sure, but it still remains that you have yet to provide us with even ONE "cold hard fact" that would actually support your argument.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Your responce to my comment on the word 'allmighty' where you inserted phrases from the definition of 'omnipotent' is a farce. Yes, different words have diferent definitions, and if you change the topic enough you can lie yourself 'right' in your own mind.
---
"As for your defintion of "nature," I would suggest that if that "definition" includes the subjective, unobservable and untestible claims of purely religious beliefs, then you aren't defning the term "nature" in a manner that any reasonable person who has ever read a dictionary could accept without suspending the normal connotations of that word in th English language."
This is fairly fundamental. I would take the position that thoughts and ideas, both correct and falacious, are a part of nature. Are you saying you think otherwise?
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke
It isn't "changing the subject" to point to the defintions of the words you are using, and when necessary the defintions of the words in those defintions in turn, when discussing whether or not a particular term is being used correctly. Your attempt to EVADE the ACTUAL defintions at hand are just one more example of the disingenuity of your argument.
Yes, those thoughts and ideas exist, but that is not the same as saying that the subject of those thoughts and ideas are real. You can think that bigfoot is hiding in your closet, but if when you go and open the door you find nothing but an old furry coat, there's a fair to middling chance that your "idea" was just a foolish thought that had no actual basis in "reality."
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Not to insult you or defame your wonderful blog, but please be advised that a lot of people will not take you seriously if you use wikipedia. It is very unreliable in a lot of cases and isn't allowed as a citation in many schools such as mine. It is much better to use an original web page.
Good point though about the definitions of God. I think your definition is still a bit limiting though because a lot of people do not think God controls everything even if He is the Creator. I hardly ever think of God simply as the Creator of everything. When I think of God I think of a divine being that can influence lives and bring peace and love. God forgives and sent His only Son to save us. He is omniscient and powerful but Creation is not the first thing that pops into my head when I hear "God."
I don't mean to limit the many additional attributes that many identify within God. I would even say that no matter how many people have there are likely even more due to the vast expanse and power of God. I just want to encourage people to think that we could all share, rather than compete for righteousness that is beyond measure. Arguing the finer points defeats that purpose.
Wikipedia is a handy source. I like the lack of comercialism (advertisements, free trial, registration, et. al) compared to britania or other encyclopedias. If I were turning in a paper I would just cite the references that Wiki does. Don't be so sure it is less accurate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
If he can influence lives and bring peace and love, then why did he need to send his only son to save anyone? Also, I thought everyone was part of "God's children", so wouldn't that make Jesus one of 6 billion kids?
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
My personal definition for God is--The highest being that is responsible for our existence and purpose.
All:
Are there any other qualities that must be included in this, hopefully, all inclusive definition?
I don't feel that adding other qualities such as omnipotence and omnipresence honors all traditions. I think a simple definition is best since I believe God is infinitely more that what we can scarcely perceive. Maybe that makes me look like a chump who's stopping short, but I'm fine my limits as a human being.
Theists (all religions):
Is there anyway in which the God you have faith in is not the same as reality and all natural law?
For me, God's will is the only True reality and nature is in line with the Truth. It's complicated, but I may be able to put forth one idea and I'm not sure if it applies. I believe that sometimes things in nature happen outside of God's will. I have heard several theists say as such. Sometimes when people fall ill or even win the lottery, there may be not reason for it. Some things just happen because we have free will and live in nature.
Of all the intriguing back and forth above the following reply from percivale really struck me:
[If the "god" that you speak of is as "real" as you claim, then yes, I would expect it to be completely possible to provide evidence to support your belief.]
I didn't see anything that would give one the idea that chillbill was trying to provide evidence to prove to people that that his god exists. To ask any person to provide evidence for something they have cultivated through recognizing that which we don't know and taking a leap of faith is unfair. If we humans we able to prove that there is a god, we wouldn't need a god. God is a mystery. Our attempts to understand don't even scratch the surface, but such efforts like chillbill's should be honored.
I applaud percivale's efforts to constructively criticize chillbill's motivations and hold him accountable to himself, especially if percivale's motivation in doing so is to further an open dialogue. However, most of the back and forth seems meaningless to me. I am saddened that two people can talk past each other so forcefully. Chillbill's initial expression of his idea for the blog has merit. Why is it so hard to just consider another's view without forcing your own on them?
I welcome percivale to read my blog and keep me just as accountable to my beliefs. I will soon post about the purpose of spreading Christianity to China.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
I'm OK with the thought of something we can't understand triggering the universe's beginning, but I have a problem with the idea of a vaporous man sitting around in the sky waiting to send everyone that doesn't kiss his feet to hell.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
That is reasonable.
Have you considered that "prayer" and "worship" are by some accounts synonymous with thankfulness?
A label of 'God' for the reality that created you, and provides everything you need to thrive need not necessarily include (or exclude) any of the hundreds of dubious attributes that human mythology has anthropomorphised onto the concept.
As a thinking (spiritual) being thankfulness is a very constructive attitude. The alternatives vary from neutral to horrible.
Some of the most awful mental and physical results of non-thankful attitudes could be described as hell.
Belief in supernatural things is not needed to gain from many religious teachings, but it is an option. ;-)
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Belief in supernatural things is not needed to gain from many religious teachings, but it is an option. ;-)
One can learn valuable moral lessons from comic books characters like Superman or Captain America. That does not, however, equate to Superman and Captain America being real beings. Religion can be very similar, when it isn't being pressed at the point of a sword or used as an excuse to justify one of man's many inhumanities towards one another. It is not uncommon for a child to believe that their favorite super hero is real. It is unfortunate (and a little sad) that so many religious people haven't outgrown their own childish fantasies.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Good. The concept of a 'fable' or 'morality tale' is not lost on you. Take it another step and consider how a meme takes on a life of its' own independent of the source, or any single individual that is influenced. That is a spiritual thing whose' existence is seen through the result it creates. On a simple and small scale these are not hard to see. The universe is not simple or small.
---
Hopelessness is forbidden by my religion. Each time you contradict yourself I gain new hope that you may be on the verge of catching a clue.
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
I think that the comparison you are making is intellectually indigenously. Memes are learned cultural traits. They seem to take on a life of their own in the minds of some people, and it helps to explain them figuratively by anthropomorphizing the concept. Memes don't actually take on a life of their own. If religion were nothing more than this--a big extended metaphor for a life philosophy--I could perhaps have a bit more respect for its believers, but in reality such opinions are rare bordering on the non-existent in the religious community. If one REALLY believes that memes "come alive," one has failed to truly grasp the concept of a meme. The same thing goes for religious people who fail to grasp the actual nature of the universe, and who make the childish mistake of believing that their favorite comic book character is a real person.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.