Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know the anti-theists and fundamentalists will have a field day with their lack of understanding of anything remotely philosophical, but here goes.
What is GOD? It has a hundred million definitions. Yes, we all know the "Big bearded white guy who lives in the sky" line, but there are a whole lot more.
God is also a metaphor for the super-ego. An archetype, a workable construct for something we cannot easily define in human language that lies within us. I have yet to see that definition effectively refuted.
God is also nature itself. The very laws of the universe have been defined as God.
God is reality. God is everything anyone has seen or thought and the very place in which our thoughts abide (reality)
God is ourselves. This is a common belief in many religions, from Hinduism to Gnosticism.
All of the above are believed by different people all over the world. God is a "real" supernatural entity to some, a metaphor for others, nature to others, etc.
God has so many definitions that the statement "there is no God" is idiotic...just as the statement "there is a God" is also, ultimately, idiotic.
Because God is so hard to define, and so many definitions exist, there is no real point in debating it.
I do practice religion, because, at the very "least" I've been getting in touch with my super-ego by doing so. If there is more to it, great, than I've actually been communing with a supernatural entity. Either way, it works for me. And I practice religion for another, very simple reason: because I enjoy it.
Do spare me "that makes you weak minded" line. I could and have argued effectively that loving one's family as an adult is for the weak minded too.
And no, Sam Harris (an arch-idiot, btw) and his claims that because God is a nebulous term, God itself is pointless is not valid. Love is also a nebulous term that means different things to many different people. Should we abandon love as well?
If one chooses to practice a religion, who cares? If one does not, who cares? Both are correct and wrong at the same time, just as someone who doesn't believe in or practice love (like me basically) is no more wrong than someone who does believe in love and practice it.
My big issues is with those on both sides of the horse shoe, be they worshipers of JEEEZZZUSSS or Dawkins, who insist that God absolutely has to be defined narrowly as a big man in the sky and all Myths have to be taken literally, otherwise one is not religious. Both sides ultimately are building strawman (or Straw-God) arguments. Both sides are equally deluded.
I do define God pretty narrowly. If anyone uses the term for the super -ego or Nature or some interest of supreme importance in one's life, then I am not so much disagreeing with that as saying that it irrelevant to the ongoing religion debate, which is really about which worldview will predominate in human society - rational or faith -based?
I don't want to get into a debate with you as I don't mind what you do, think or believe. So long as you don't help with perpetuating the grip of religious organizations on society, I am cool with you.
Just, please. drop the disbelief is idiotic thing, because the God you are talking about IS the specific one, or you couldn't have said that belief in God is idiotic. As a logic -expert you will be familiar with the fallacy of equivocation.
If we tal about the specific god- concept related to religion, then disbelief in logically mandated. I will explain the chain of logical reasoning if you wish, but I'm sure you can work it out for yourself, beginning with 'We have no definite proof that a god exists or doesn't exist'.
If you are not using the term to apply to personal feelings or the way the cosmos wags, then you won't need that proposition proved to you.
I know the anti-theists and fundamentalists will have a field day with their lack of understanding of anything remotely philosophical, but here goes.
What is GOD? It has a hundred million definitions. Yes, we all know the "Big bearded white guy who lives in the sky" line, but there are a whole lot more.
God is also a metaphor for the super-ego. An archetype, a workable construct for something we cannot easily define in human language that lies within us. I have yet to see that definition effectively refuted.
God is also nature itself. The very laws of the universe have been defined as God.
God is reality. God is everything anyone has seen or thought and the very place in which our thoughts abide (reality)
God is ourselves. This is a common belief in many religions, from Hinduism to Gnosticism.
All of the above are believed by different people all over the world. God is a "real" supernatural entity to some, a metaphor for others, nature to others, etc.
God has so many definitions that the statement "there is no God" is idiotic...just as the statement "there is a God" is also, ultimately, idiotic.
Because God is so hard to define, and so many definitions exist, there is no real point in debating it.
I do practice religion, because, at the very "least" I've been getting in touch with my super-ego by doing so. If there is more to it, great, than I've actually been communing with a supernatural entity. Either way, it works for me. And I practice religion for another, very simple reason: because I enjoy it.
Do spare me "that makes you weak minded" line. I could and have argued effectively that loving one's family as an adult is for the weak minded too.
And no, Sam Harris (an arch-idiot, btw) and his claims that because God is a nebulous term, God itself is pointless is not valid. Love is also a nebulous term that means different things to many different people. Should we abandon love as well?
If one chooses to practice a religion, who cares? If one does not, who cares? Both are correct and wrong at the same time, just as someone who doesn't believe in or practice love (like me basically) is no more wrong than someone who does believe in love and practice it.
My big issues is with those on both sides of the horse shoe, be they worshipers of JEEEZZZUSSS or Dawkins, who insist that God absolutely has to be defined narrowly as a big man in the sky and all Myths have to be taken literally, otherwise one is not religious. Both sides ultimately are building strawman (or Straw-God) arguments. Both sides are equally deluded.
Imagine you decide to walk to a restaurant with Richard Dawkins and Ray Comfort. Both Ray and Richard think the goal is to reach the restaurant as rapidly as possible, so they take a strait line there, right down the sidewalk.
You, on the other hand, want to stop at the thrift stores, take the scenic route through the park, then maybe see a movie, then go to the restaurant.
You get irritated at Ray and Dawkins because you see them as missing the important part of the walk.
They get irritated at you because they think you are wasting time with pointless distractions.
See what I'm getting at here?
Quote:
If one chooses to practice a religion, who cares? If one does not, who cares? Both are correct and wrong at the same time, just as someone who doesn't believe in or practice love (like me basically) is no more wrong than someone who does believe in love and practice it.
I think religion can make people feel better. However, what Dawkins and others tend to debate about is what is the true nature of reality. Views about the source of morality and the universe is a topic that greatly influences society. It is understandable to want to have debates and arguments about it.
It is understandable for you to want to dilute god into meaning everything under the sun. I agree that religion can be motivating for some people. I'll add to that, that it can, at least temporarily, for some people, at least for now, kill the spiritual mood if the word god is not used.
However, you criticize people who have different goals than you. They care about the way the universe runs. Semantics are considerably less important to them. Of what help to people debating god's existence would diluting the meaning of "god" into "anything under the sun" be?
I'm wondering if your irritation should not be focused so much at anti-theists and religious fundamentalists, as at people who think like you and see value to god meaning anything under the sun, but who stick themselves into the atheist or theist camp and insist god must be defined as X.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,506,556 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
God is also a metaphor for the super-ego. An archetype, a workable construct for something we cannot easily define in human language that lies within us. I have yet to see that definition effectively refuted.
Just call it the super ego.
Quote:
God is also nature itself. The very laws of the universe have been defined as God.
just call it nature.
Quote:
God is reality. God is everything anyone has seen or thought and the very place in which our thoughts abide (reality)
Just call it reality.
Quote:
God is ourselves. This is a common belief in many religions, from Hinduism to Gnosticism.
Are you in need to elevate your ego..."I'm special!" Just call yourself yourself.
Quote:
Because God is so hard to define, and so many definitions exist, there is no real point in debating it.
The debate is why to you need the word god when you already have another word that describes whatever concept or object with more precision?
Quote:
I do practice religion, because, at the very "least" I've been getting in touch with my super-ego by doing so. If there is more to it, great, than I've actually been communing with a supernatural entity. Either way, it works for me. And I practice religion for another, very simple reason: because I enjoy it.
Do spare me "that makes you weak minded" line. I could and have argued effectively that loving one's family as an adult is for the weak minded too.
And no, Sam Harris (an arch-idiot, btw) and his claims that because God is a nebulous term, God itself is pointless is not valid. Love is also a nebulous term that means different things to many different people. Should we abandon love as well?
If one chooses to practice a religion, who cares? If one does not, who cares? Both are correct and wrong at the same time, just as someone who doesn't believe in or practice love (like me basically) is no more wrong than someone who does believe in love and practice it.
My big issues is with those on both sides of the horse shoe, be they worshipers of JEEEZZZUSSS or Dawkins, who insist that God absolutely has to be defined narrowly as a big man in the sky and all Myths have to be taken literally, otherwise one is not religious. Both sides ultimately are building strawman (or Straw-God) arguments. Both sides are equally deluded.
Just admit it Vic you're a poet at heart. You have a NEED to use unnecessary/colorful/Poetic words to get a meaning across. You have a need to use abstract concepts to give meaning to your feelings/essence of your being. It ok. I'm good with it. But I don't and a lot of other don't need to be poetic to justify our existence. And would prefer if people would respect our point of view and use bland/concise words when speaking to us.
Last edited by baystater; 12-07-2014 at 08:20 AM..
Just admit it Vic you're a poet at heart. You have a NEED to use unnecessary/colorful/Poetic words to get a meaning across. You have a need to use abstract concepts to give meaning to your feelings/essence of your being. It ok. I'm good with it. But I don't and a lot of other don't need to be poetic to justify our existence. And would prefer if people would respect our point of view and use bland/concise words when speaking to us.
V.P., I see you are back, and your point of view has matured a lot. I have no real disagreement with you in an ultimate sense. I came out of the "white bearded guy in the sky" camp and that is what most theists here belong to and so it's what I mostly engage with / argue against.
It is true that defining god is a fool's errand when you look at the totality of god-concepts in the wider world, and as such, (un)belief in such generalizations becomes increasingly meaningless. It is also true that any formulation of "god" that I have heard of is unfalsifiable. As such, withholding belief is entirely rational and is in fact the correct default.
Nevertheless most theists have very specific dogmas about god and that is what I argue against.
Victorianpunk while you make some good points I'm always immediately wary of your posts because you always sound so angry all the time. Starting your thread by calling absolutely everyone an idiot is not an ideal way to entice stimulating discourse. I don't know what you are so angry about.
About the content of your post: Doesn't it strike you as funny that absolutely everyone - believer or non believer or whatever, thinks their view is the correct one? And that would include yourself. Everybody else is a complete idiot because they don't see things the way you see it?
So in fact you are exactly the same as everyone else. Only your view is the correct one and everyone else is deluded / everyone else is an idiot.
In fact everyone has a right to have whatever belief they like. That doesn't make them idiots, it means they have formed a belief exactly the same as yourself. Just their belief is different from yours.
So in fact you are exactly the same as everyone else. Only your view is the correct one and everyone else is deluded / everyone else is an idiot.
Yes, VP is still encumbered by youthful hubris but is at least not insisting on his definition of god for everyone anymore. VP acknowledges that different people have different definitions, and his is but one among many. This is progress. Hope springs eternal. He has now progressed to where I was at the midpoint of my time as a fundamentalist -- acknowledging that other semi-valid, if inferior, dogmas exist -- still condescending toward them but at least they are in the field of awareness where you can begin to work with them and understand them.
VP even now acknowledges something I don't recall him ever acknowledging before, that he might be mistaken about this thing he worships being "god", but that he finds the concept useful anyway. This, too, is progress. In fact I have zero problem with someone working with symbolic "truths", so long as they don't declare them as axiomatic for all comers.
I agree. VP is showing encouraging signs of classy thinking. While further movement from this idea of God as a label applied to everything and used as a mental stimulus to access the Higher Thoughts would be welcome, this will do fine, provided that it is accepted that it is not how everyone else sees it or should, and that the religion -debate is about a very specific concept applied to the label 'God'.
I do define God pretty narrowly. If anyone uses the term for the super -ego or Nature or some interest of supreme importance in one's life, then I am not so much disagreeing with that as saying that it irrelevant to the ongoing religion debate, which is really about which worldview will predominate in human society - rational or faith -based?
Everyone on Earth uses both reason and faith. No one is without faith, and no one is without reason. Hope is ultimately a kind of faith...is anyone truly hopeless on Earth? (no goth kid jokes...)
Quote:
I don't want to get into a debate with you as I don't mind what you do, think or believe. So long as you don't help with perpetuating the grip of religious organizations on society, I am cool with you.
That is a very wide brush. Technically, a group of free-spirit hippie types in a Wiccan coven are a religious organization. What exactly are they doing to harm the world?
Quote:
Just, please. drop the disbelief is idiotic thing, because the God you are talking about IS the specific one, or you couldn't have said that belief in God is idiotic. As a logic -expert you will be familiar with the fallacy of equivocation.
I never claimed to be an expert on anything. And I am saying all belief and disbelief are equally wrong. Everyone is wrong and right, as ultimately the truth can never be known.
Quote:
If we tal about the specific god- concept related to religion, then disbelief in logically mandated. I will explain the chain of logical reasoning if you wish, but I'm sure you can work it out for yourself, beginning with 'We have no definite proof that a god exists or doesn't exist'.
Not true at all. "Religion" is a very wide category. Wiccans, for example, mostly believe that the deities are archetypes for parts of the human psyche. Now, you can say it is silly that people worship the personifications of their inner selves, but that is just an opinion.
Quote:
If you are not using the term to apply to personal feelings or the way the cosmos wags, then you won't need that proposition proved to you.
I am saying it is and is not inside us, and that God is not supernatural or natural. Ultimately, we don't know.
The difference between this position an agnosticism is that agnosticism, for the most part, is the position of "because we can never know for sure, no point in searching." The ignostic position is more of "we can't know for sure, so whatever one does with divinity (religion) is up to them as individuals. Either way."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
