[Darkwatch]

The title is self descriptive. For anyone following, this is a break off from the (not so) Understanding thread.

So God. Usual options on the board:
-Judeo-Christian Bearded Fellow
-Wrongly named universal phenomenon (god is causality and possibility anthropomorphised)
-Supra-Conscious Entity (Non traditional god, infinite, unknowable, Amoral, the A is specified in the sense of it being outside human experience)
-Supra-Conscious Universal phenomenon (God is the conscious that originaly thought possibility, thus creating it and the universe and still being present in it.)
-Carte Blanche (Cartoon character invented to distract and attract those in need of belief, non existant), so if you're atheist, you don't have to define god from a theological stand point. You can explain that he is a psychological construction, and thus a figment of the imagination and thus inexistant

Feel free to add your own.


The basics of the debate:
-NO FLAMING
-NO SNIDE REMARKS
-No sarcasm
-State a Clear and Complete definition of God (whether you believe or not) and defend it (don't preach it). (If you say he doesn't exist don't just say that and move on, define why you believe any conception is flawed, and your exactly why it doesn't exist in YOUR conception of things)
-Debate the finer points of the definitions and problems with either yours or others (with respect)
-No righteousness (both sides)

Just the equivalent of a brain storming session really, and maybe (I hope) we'll gain a better understanding of ideas we consider foreign to us.

Here's the principle:
person 1: "I think this. And these are the reasons why...."
person 2: "Ok, now I understand exactly where you are coming from. Though I would like clarifications on points 2 and 6."
person 1: "They are..."
person 2: "I see, well I still don't agree with you and this is why..."

I'm not asking you to agree, simply to try and understand.

And to avoid the cyclical debate problem:

This is NOT about who is right or wrong, but simply to try and clear up the deifinition of god (if at all possible) and the idea of faith, and by putting our ideas down maybe understand the person next to you better. This about hearing out their thoughts without the bias of confrontation.
No accusing anyone of being wrong. This is to understand their mind set, not to persuade or love them. You can go on disliking/hating them afterwards.
And to make things easier no absolutist remarks (from both sides).


I can understand why some people find this pointless, even exhasperating. Chances are this will lead to:
-Things being repeated
-Cyclical debate
-Bickering occuring anyway.

The first one, I think that the things have been said but in a context of antagonism, which is why I created this thread in the hopes of avoiding it. Here is where I hope a civil debate will occur.

To the second worry, if we can avoid antagonising the other, then a cyclical debate might be stopped. Though I am aware this thread has its limits since eventualy beliefs and ideas will be defined as best they can. So at that point, I guess we let the thread die.

To the third, if people can just refrain from posting when they're angry or in other states of mind we should be fine. (Obviously I'm both overly hopeful and in denial. Though this is the only opportunity in the thread I'm allowing for people to prove me wrong.)

Remember, knowledge breeds understanding, understanding tolerance. It is conviction that kills (Both religious and non-religious conviction).

[Dolorous Menhir]

....................,-~*'`?lllllll`*~,
..............,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll?`*-,
.........,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
......,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
....;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll
.....lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
......lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(?`*,`,
.......llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-..*`*;..)
........,-*`?,*`)............,-~*`~................/
.........|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.
......../.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...
.......|.../.../.../.*`..............................)....)?`~,
.......|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,
.....././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---........../...../..|.........?```*~-
......(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............
.......*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|......
..........*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............

[Darkwatch]

Well I guess that confirms my worst fear when starting this thread: That no one would even try.


Edit:
Hope rises in me again, I've re -read my opening post, perhaps the problem is clarity. See the edit I will make in the above post.

[paladin]

I see the deist side of things.. God watches(possibly) but does not take direct action. We are free to do as we will without intervention. I believe that God is univeral over many monotheistic(and even some polytheistic, being multi-faceted/multi-aspected) religions.

As far as explaining it.. Logical deduction/reasoning of past and present brought me to it. That is pretty much the classical defintion of a deist as well. I don't really believe in intervention or miracles(in the present time), but I believe that there is something more than what meets the eye(and it's not robots in disguise) due to the complexity of nature and the wealth of historical data(be it myth, legend, Bible, Koran, etc) that references religion.

[Morgoth]

i'd be willing to try, but not perhaps while at work. It's an interesting idea this, and I'd like to contribute.. The problem I think is that a universal definition of god is next to impossible.

[Kurald]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this. God is defined differently by different people. No one definition has more evidence than another, it's all about belief/perspective. You pretty much defined the most common versions in your post already.

[Darkwatch]

Kurald;178382 said:

I'm not sure I understand the point of this. God is defined differently by different people. No one definition has more evidence than another, it's all about belief/perspective. You pretty much defined the most common versions in your post already.

Exactly, that's why I want everyone to put down their definition here to avoid confusion and so you get and idea of where this person is coming from. And also to see that they have put some thought into it regardless of their point of view.

[Kurald]

Darkwatch;178386 said:

Exactly, that's why I want everyone to put down their definition here to avoid confusion and so you get and idea of where this person is coming from. And also to see that they have put some thought into it regardless of their point of view.

Ok, gotcha.

[Satan]

I'm sorry, but it seems like a pointless discussion, especially since this is predominantly an atheist community (or at least I get a feeling that it is). I can't find any reason why an atheist should try to define something that is excluded from his own system of belief; this is for all intents and purposes a theological debate and it would be presumptuous and stupid for any atheist to but in. What more, there would be no point in debating as any argument would have to be based in ones own personal convictions. This discussion would therefore relegate into a meaningless drivel of opinions.

But to honor my pledge of hypocrisy, God is relative to the different communities that define Him/Her/It in that it (I'm guessing) reflects the ideals set among the members of that community (go Durkheim!). So my idea of God would be somewhat akin akin to the LaVeyian idea of Satan: ego-centric with a touch Rawl's Veil of Ignorance and a little dash of humour on the side.

[Darkwatch]

I also said you could use this thread to clarify why you don't believe in god and what you believe the concept to truly be (comfort or ploy).

[Dolorous Menhir]

Since my contribution has been solicited by way of a negative rep, I'll try to share my thoughts briefly.

A good framework that is commonly used in science literature, and one that I favour, is as follows.

There are, broadly speaking, two categories of god.

1) The God of Miracles. Answers prayers, communicates with prophets, tortures unbelievers in Hell, whatever. Assigned a personality with specific human characteristics. In short, the God(dess) of any given religion.

2) The God of Order. Created the universe. Laid down the laws of the natural world. Takes no active role in the world. When scientists are quoted discussing God, they are usually referring to the notion of this concept - "God does not play dice." Note that I say concept. These scientists are not necessarily religious, but "God" is a convenient shorthand for order, natural law, beauty, etc.

I reject (1) out of hand. There's no reason to believe in an interventionist deity who takes an active interest in the world, lays down moral codes, throws lightning bolts, etc. The beliefs of the people are immaterial. There is no objective reason to accept such entities as real.

(2) is more difficult. You can make the sophisticated argument that this god started the world and then abandoned it to its own devices. Current scientific knowledge does not definitively explain the origins of the universe, so we cannot ignore the possibility that some agency started things rolling. But, and it can't be emphasised enough, this current lack is not permanent. More light may be shed on these questions at any time.

And, to strike a more practical note, where is the benefit in crediting an architect with designing the universe? There is no extra utility in assuming some agency laid down the laws of physics, you can understand them without that knowledge. So although (2) cannot be easily dismissed, there is no reason to accept it either. The default position is not "we don't know either way," instead it is "there is no reason to think there is one." Or, atheism over agnosticism.

So, I am an atheist.

That wasn't that brief, but there you go. May as well explain things in full. I don't like to get into emotional arguments, because it is easy to become very condescending to the believers. I like to think this is a simple case for atheism, though it assumes a degree of scientific literacy and integrity that most people do not enjoy (see how easily the condescension creeps in).

[Mail4bugg]

Darkwatch;178396 said:

I also said you could use this thread to clarify why you don't believe in god and what you believe the concept to truly be (comfort or ploy).

I see myself as being sort of a pseudo-agnostic with a jungian bent. I don't know about there being external gods or god or whatever. I do believe we all have the capacity of creating our own internal god or gods as means of understanding the world around us. I'm not talking about multiple personalities or such. I sort of mean those aspects of oneself that contribute to the core personality and thus create a greater complexity that is an individual. It is those gods that have archetypal characteristics within each of us that allows us to achieve certain commonality. At other times its just me and nothing else.

I believe there is something beyond this existence. As to what it is I don't know and I suspect we're not supposed to know and even if we could know we would be incapable of understand or comprehending what it is. I have had three supernatural( and I don't mean the TV show) experiences which shaped my current belief. And if anyone wonders there was no drugs or grog involved. Well that's what I believe although I think I've just confused myself a bit more.
It all seems a bit like a dog chasing his own tail at times. Every once and while I do catch it.

[Satan]

Darkwatch;178396 said:

I also said you could use this thread to clarify why you don't believe in god and what you believe the concept to truly be (comfort or ploy).

I find the belief in God personally pointless. I don't see how me believing in a supernatural being could benifit me in any way. Simple and boring atheist.

As apparent from my last post, I'm pretty fixed into the Durkheiman school: God (to speak only of the abrahamic beliefs) is a culmination of desirable values held in in any given community, worshipped to reaffirm these values and to strengthen the bond between the individuals of that community (simply put). Comfort or ploy? Well, both, and a lot more.

Dolorous Menhir;178439 said:

I reject (1) out of hand. There's no reason to believe in an interventionist deity who takes an active interest in the world, lays down moral codes, throws lightning bolts, etc. The beliefs of the people are immaterial. There is no objective reason to accept such entities as real.

Shame that you, as a subject, can't make any decision completely based on objective reasoning.

[Cause]

'You know when you want something really bad and close your eyes and wish for it? Gods that guy who ignores you.'
The island

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir;178439 said:

1) The God of Miracles. Answers prayers, communicates with prophets, tortures unbelievers in Hell, whatever. Assigned a personality with specific human characteristics. In short, the God(dess) of any given religion.

2) The God of Order. Created the universe. Laid down the laws of the natural world. Takes no active role in the world. When scientists are quoted discussing God, they are usually referring to the notion of this concept - "God does not play dice." Note that I say concept. These scientists are not necessarily religious, but "God" is a convenient shorthand for order, natural law, beauty, etc.

I agree, these two definitions loosely capture the vast array of attributes given to gods. However, as you reject 1 out of hand, I reject 2 out of hand. This is in the realm of science, not theology, while there may be some aspects of science that are ultimate unknowables, that does not inspire me to invoke a vast intelligence. The 'god of miracles', however, is one that I feel warrants investigation. Rational and logical thought on the reality, influence cause and benefit of worship, miracles, prayer, ritual, parable, myth, faith, rites of passage, morality etc. and the implications of these on belief, psychology, decision making and interaction have made to me this concept of a god of miracles very real indeed. Albeit somewhat different to the commonly held interpretation.

[stone monkey]

There's also the God of the Gaps scenario. Which may be one of the worst arguments for the existence of the deity around.

CI's argument appears to be the IMO rather wishy-washy one that says the idea of God and the effect this idea has on a person's outlook, behaviour and thinking is what this "God" is. This, of course, would imply that this particular version of "God" is merely a work of individual imagination that the imaginer has chosen to act upon.

[Cold Iron]

Quote

CI's argument appears to be the IMO rather wishy-washy one that says the idea of God and the effect this idea has on a person's outlook, behaviour and thinking is what this "God" is. This, of course, would imply that this particular version of "God" is merely a work of individual imagination that the imaginer has chosen to act upon.

I would say it is your description of my argument that is wishy-washy , but regardless of your interpretation of what is real, if someone acts on what they believe to be a god's wishes, then surely that god has had some tangible impact on the world. And the process of 'imagining' a god is rather a complex one that is, i would say, an integral part of humanity.

@pots, stop putting labels on things, it limits your understanding.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I don't really understand Cold Iron's arguments. It is plain he wants to believe in a god, but he doesn't just take the plunge and accept there is one, so there's all this bumf about how God exists because he affects everyone in some vaguely undefined way.

It seems to boil down to "religion is really important to the world and I find it interesting, so there must be a god".