• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do Gods Exist?

 
 
 
bilby said:
Oh, yes, the great and unassailable "argument by dictionary". :rolleyes:

"Kim Jong Un has never been a gallery in a theatre, therefore you are wrong to say that he is a God", and other such absurdities that result from this beloved form of argument, suggest strongly that it's not the slam-dunk you imagine it to be.

Equivocation is not cleverness.
Click to expand...

That isn't my argument. It seems to be yours.

My Claim is that a theater balcony is called a god. Why? Because it's high, because the artwork used to picture height thematically. Clouds, gods, etc. Because the people who sat there tended to be lofty. Elite. Though that isn't always the case, sometimes they were the poor who couldn't afford good seats.

The English word God means literally to pour. Libate. Because people sacrificed liquid to those they worshipped. It's just a word meaning mighty/venerated. The dictionary gives examples of mighty/venerated people and things, real and imagined. A god doesn't have to be anything except mighty/venerated.
 
bilby said:
It's your thread; Why don't you have a shot at providing a watertight and unequivocal definition of what a god is to you?
Click to expand...

I don't know what else I can do. Wikipedia, Oxford, my personal definition in great detail and I've repeatedly asked you (the royal you, anyone) to define it. I've given Jewish, Christian, Shinto . . . now we just need atheism. And you can't.

I don't understand why you can't see this argument is not about gods. It's about political ideology.
 
"I have transformed the problem from intractably difficult and possibly quite insoluble conundrum, into a mere linguistic puzzle. Albeit," he muttered, after a long moment of silent pondering, "an intractably difficult and possibly insoluble one."
Click to expand...

—Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
RIS said:
bilby said:
It's your thread; Why don't you have a shot at providing a watertight and unequivocal definition of what a god is to you?
Click to expand...

I don't know what else I can do. Wikipedia, Oxford, my personal definition in great detail and I've repeatedly asked you (the royal you, anyone) to define it. I've given Jewish, Christian, Shinto . . . now we just need atheism. And you can't.

I don't understand why you can't see this argument is not about gods. It's about political ideology.
Click to expand...
It's about storytelling.

Humans love them some storytelling.
 
bilby said:
It's about storytelling.

Humans love them some storytelling.
Click to expand...

So, you can't define what a god is. It's so simple. I don't understand. It's been a long time since I read Dirk Gently. Zen method of navigation. The alleged vehicle.
 
RIS said:
I've given Jewish, Christian, Shinto . . . now we just need atheism. And you can't.
Click to expand...
Atheism isn't a bloc; Atheists don't have a single definition of anything, nor are there any rules of atheism we all follow.

I can give you my definition, but you shouldn't expect any other atheist to agree with it. Here you go:

A god is a powerful entity that can do things that are impossible for humans to do, but can be lobbied by humans to act on their behalf.​

I contend that no such entities exist outside fiction.
 
Last edited:
RIS said:
So, you can't define what a god is.
Click to expand...
You are very quick to make declarations that are utterly false. You should probably work on that. I was literally typing out the definition you say I can't provide, when you posted that. :)

It is unwise to get ones mental exercise by jumping to conclusions.

Also:

bilby said:
Angry Floof said:
There are no punctuation Nazis here, only people who don't bother to read other people's posts. :rofl:
Click to expand...
To be fair, if everyone here read everyone else's posts carefully, half the replies on the board would disappear.

Perhaps we could have an automatic filter that deletes any post beginning with "So". That would eliminate about a third of those. ;)
Click to expand...
 
bilby said:
Atheism isn't a bloc; Atheists don't have a single definition of anything, nor are there any rules of atheism we all follow.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. They are the same in that regard as anyone. Theists or Buddhist or Taoists, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative or any other group, large or small.

bilby said:
I can give you my definition, but you shouldn't expect any other atheist to agree with it.
Click to expand...

Who said they had to?

bilby said:
Here you go:

A god is a character from a story about powerful entities that can do things that are impossible for humans to do.

I contend that no such entities exist outside fiction.
Click to expand...

You're only talking about one example out of billions of others. Why lump them all together?
 
Political ideology is an abstraction. Gods are abstractions. We're simply describing and categorizing human behavior is all.

As claims go, some become belief and some become knowledge based on whether given claims can be supported with evidence. If someone claims to have a political ideology or a god we can quantify and document that person's behavior and give it a label. That can be helpful in furthering our understanding and ability to communicate with others of our species, which is a good thing.
 
Essentially, gods are a way to take one step back from claiming magical powers. People who claimed such powers would come unstuck when their magic didn't work. By becoming a priest, rather than a magician, a confidence trickster can excuse his failures by saying "I would love to help, but god says 'no', so I am afraid I can't".

It renders him that little bit less likely to be tarred and feathered.

A god is the fictional silent partner in a magic scam.
 
RIS said:
bilby said:
Atheism isn't a bloc; Atheists don't have a single definition of anything, nor are there any rules of atheism we all follow.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.
Click to expand...
Well it remains true whether you buy it or not. That's a defining feature of reality.
RIS said:
They are the same in that regard as anyone. Theists or Buddhist or Taoists, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative or any other group, large or small.
Click to expand...
The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.
RIS said:
bilby said:
I can give you my definition, but you shouldn't expect any other atheist to agree with it.
Click to expand...

Who said they had to?
Click to expand...
You just did:
RIS said:
bilby said:
Atheism isn't a bloc; Atheists don't have a single definition of anything, nor are there any rules of atheism we all follow.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

RIS said:
bilby said:
Here you go:

A god is a character from a story about powerful entities that can do things that are impossible for humans to do.

I contend that no such entities exist outside fiction.
Click to expand...

You're only talking about one example out of billions of others. Why lump them all together?
Click to expand...
Huh? I said nothing about any examples.

My definition (which btw I have since refined to remove an unwarranted question begging) is general - it applies to all gods.

Here it is as revised:

A god is a powerful entity that can do things that are impossible for humans to do, but can be lobbied by humans to act on their behalf.​

That such entities are only found in stories is not a part of the definition, and I shouldn't have included it - it is a conclusion, and not a part of the definition.

I am working this stuff out in real-time here; Gods are not important to me, so I don't waste a lot of time thinking about them, until and unless asked to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom