Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

[DBT]

What is the point of worship? Rather than 'God' - whatever that is supposed to be - perhaps it has more to do with a perceived benefit or payoff?

 

[Swammerdami]

What would it even mean to "worship" such a "God"?

What does that have to do with the truth or falsity of the concept?

Blah blah blah. I do NOT think I offered much of an opinion on the truth/falsity.

What I DID do was offer explanatory context. which YOU snipped!

You should fit in real well here at the Infidels of Babel, Politesse.

 

[SIB]

What would it even mean to "worship" such a "God"?

What does that have to do with the truth or falsity of the concept?

Exactly. We are part of something more. That's what the observations show.
"Why would I worship?",
"We shouldn't argue with other atheists.",
"Don't talk about it like that because theist can use it.",
"That doesn't get us anywhere.",
"It muddies the waters."
"I am only talking about ... [insert a limited set of traits] type of god.

They are all special pleading to avoid the observations. Its what some theist do. So the question is why? Well, for me, its because we are human. List the traits of a special pleading theist. Predict if we have any special pleading atheist in our ranks.

Guess what, we have to.

So then the discussion, for me, turns toward "Are "you" fighting religion or just seeking the best truth we humans can?" Then, if you are fighting religion, are "you" being as honest as you can with a person just seeking the truth?" Like a child for example? or "Are you trying to allow them to be the best they can be?"

and how is "fighting religion as the number one priority" affect how you guide a person?

"You" here means "we" ... flip that "W" ... Me.

Lennon style tactics (or insert another person if you like, like CIA), lol, that made me laugh, just doesn't seem like the best we can do. "Stalins" need to be stopped, not used as a a tool. They are needed, but very, very sparingly. lol ... to funny.

 

[Swammerdami]

What would it even mean to "worship" such a "God"?

The most salient point in my comment -- which appears to be the subject of this entire rejoinder -- is that any light shed on what 'such a "God"' might even refer to has been snipped.

What does that have to do with the truth or falsity of the concept?

Exactly. We are part of something more. That's what the observations show.
"Why would I worship?",
"We shouldn't argue with other atheists.",
"Don't talk about it like that because theist can use it.",
"That doesn't get us anywhere.",
"It muddies the waters."
"I am only talking about ... [insert a limited set of traits] type of god.

They are all special pleading to avoid the observations. Its what some theist do. So the question is why? Well, for me, its because we are human. List the traits of a special pleading theist. Predict if we have any special pleading atheist in our ranks.

Guess what, we have to.

So then the discussion, for me, turns toward "Are "you" fighting religion or just seeking the best truth we humans can?" Then, if you are fighting religion, are "you" being as honest as you can with a person just seeking the truth?" Like a child for example? or "Are you trying to allow them to be the best they can be?"

and how is "fighting religion as the number one priority" affect how you guide a person?

"You" here means "we" ... flip that "W" ... Me.

Is this "flippancy" intended to inform? I can't guess the antecedents for any of the pronouns.

Lennon style tactics (or insert another person if you like, like CIA), lol, that made me laugh, just doesn't seem like the best we can do. "Stalins" need to be stopped, not used as a a tool. They are needed, but very, very sparingly. lol ... to funny.

Maybe I just haven't made it up to Level 49, but absolutely nothing in SIB's post made any sense to me whatsoever.

The only reason I respond at all is that I have the feeling the post is intended as some refutation against me. or against something somebody thinks I implied. Is that correct?

If you can restate the charges SUCCINCTLY, and using VERY simple words I will deign to read that summary of the Indictment.

 

[bilby]

We are part of something more. That's what the observations show.

That is NOT "what the observations show", because it is not ANYTHING.

"Something more" is so vague as to be a non-claim. It says nothing.

If and when you can provide more details of WTF "something" means in this context, then perhaps we will have something to discuss; Until then your repeatd caw of "something more, something more" is just spam.

We don't know everything. That fact has exactly bugger-all to do with gods, not least because one of the things we do know is that gods are purely fictional; There are no observations of gods.

Of course every observation of something that isn't us, is an observation of "something more"; So what?

If you posted "I saw a tree once", that would carry rather more content than your "something more" spam, but would still be irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[RIS]

Just for fun, first there's this.



And then this.

 

[RIS]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer.

That isn't even remotely anything approaching a reasonable argument, in my opinion. It reminds me of the watchmaker analogy. If a primitive man saw a watch lying on the ground you can't imagine what he would think. Maybe "That's a cool looking rock; I think I'll braid it into my scraggly beard next to this chicken bone." Or "That's a fairly decent watch, not like the ones on my home planet, but still."

Aside from this being just another angle on the god of the gaps argument in my opinion, (i.e. we don't know how it all began therefore god/intelligent designer), playing devil's advocate and assuming his deduction is true, so what?

We "know" we're here. We know we don't "know" how we came to be here. Science doesn't seem to have any real explanation and the Bible does. However, the Bible has been grossly misrepresented and therefore misunderstood.

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

From a theological perspective it doesn't matter. Consider the interchangeable gods and goddesses of Shinto. They weren't presented as literally existing, they were fabricated in order to instruct Japanese youth on culture, morality, etc. A god doesn't need to exist.

From an atheistic perspective it's irrelevant because it still has a massive impact on the societies we live in. Consider this: "The universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions . . ."

The entire video is interesting, but the point contextually begins in earnest at the 2:35 mark.

 

[RIS]

Yes. That's right.

If you believe in a god nobody has ever heard from, a god that doesn't care, doesn't act, doesn't tell you what to do or not do...how does that make you any different than an atheist?

That's sort of the point. A god can be anything or anyone attributed might and/or venerated. Religion is a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. There are atheistic religions, like Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and depending on the adherent, Hinduism, Shinto and Scientology.

Personally, I think, and this always pisses a lot of people off but I think it nevertheless, atheism doesn't offer a very thoughtful alternative to theism because they don't fully understand or acknowledge how similar they are. What God(s) are. And that isn't because it's complicated, but due rather, in part, to the fact that it's so convoluted. Distorted. Corrupt. Well, they get that from theism. It's a fractured reflection.

 

[pood]

The entire video is interesting, but the point contextually begins in earnest at the 2:35 mark.

Could you summarize what is interesting about the Jordan Peterson video? I’m not aware that Jordan Peterson has ever said anything interesting, but I could be wrong.

 

[pood]

From an atheistic perspective it's irrelevant because it still has a massive impact on the societies we live in. Consider this: "The universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions . . ."

Which would those be, insofar as their scientific work is concerned?

 

[Jarhyn]

In the vein of "what things come from and where".

Let's suppose I have two computers made by two different people.

Each computer has a programmer there with a description of the game "flappy bird", but let's imagine for a moment that they each put together that identical idea independently... Stranger things have happened after all.

So, on opposite sides of the world each develops exactly the same program. Oops!

And let's for a moment imagine that the game has a mode where a deterministic robot plays the game so as to eliminate an "external" player, and that this is identical too.

Now answer a very important question: if I am somehow this internal player, deterministic in every way, is it even a sensible question to consider which of these programmers is my creator God? Does this not tell us something about the underlying invalidity of the logic of the very question of the "creator" of a whole universe?

At best it is like a probability wave collapse: until the event that takes the cat out of the box, it's really all of them and none of them.

 

[pood]

We "know" we're here. We know we don't "know" how we came to be here. Science doesn't seem to have any real explanation and the Bible does.

The bible has an “explanation” of how we came to be here? I must have missed that. What is it?

However, the Bible has been grossly misrepresented and therefore misunderstood.

In what way? How can one misrepresent or misunderstand something that is riddled with internal contradictions and absurdities?

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

From a theological perspective it doesn't matter. Consider the interchangeable gods and goddesses of Shinto. They weren't presented as literally existing, they were fabricated in order to instruct Japanese youth on culture, morality, etc. A god doesn't need to exist.

Yes, the noble lie. Dionysius before Christ.

From an atheistic perspective it's irrelevant because it still has a massive impact on the societies we live in.

Unfortunately religion does have such an impact on culture, but the impact is really nothing when it comes to doing science.

 

[RIS]

Could you summarize what is interesting about the Jordan Peterson video? I’m not aware that Jordan Peterson has ever said anything interesting, but I could be wrong.

Well, interesting is subjective, though, isn't it? I have found that many of what I call militant atheists are politically liberal and have a profound disliking for Peterson. So, I summarized the video by quoting him from it when I said consider this. What he is talking about is the influence the god concept, right or wrong, truth or illusion, historically has on society.

That's true from many perspectives. One example I often use is Shinto, where gods are not significant, interchangeable, the significance is communal. Atheists may prefer the same sentiment Peterson was making when it's made by one of the best television programs ever made, House MD.



Spirituality. The Biblical words for spirit mean an invisible active force, with visible effects. The Greek word, for example, is pneuma from which we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia. Depending on the context they can be translated as breath, wind, compelled mental inclination. Gods don't have to literally exist in order to be gods. Their influence is everywhere, all around you. Whether you subscribe to them or not.

 

[pood]

Lucretius believed the gods existed but were completely indifferent to us and affected us in no way.

 

[pood]

Could you summarize what is interesting about the Jordan Peterson video? I’m not aware that Jordan Peterson has ever said anything interesting, but I could be wrong.

Well, interesting is subjective, though, isn't it? I have found that many of what I call militant atheists are politically liberal and have a profound disliking for Peterson. So, I summarized the video by quoting him from it when I said consider this.

Well, it’s hardly a revelation what comes after “consider this.” That we are all marinated in superstitious twaddle is obvious. What I am asking is whether Peterson is suggesting that the scientific work of Dawkins, Harris, and others is influenced by mythology. I say it is not. What does he say?

 

[pood]

Just for fun, first there's this.



And then this.

Could you summarize those videos? I believe the rules here even require doing so.

 

[RIS]

The bible has an “explanation” of how we came to be here? I must have missed that. What is it?

Genesis chapter 1

In what way? How can one misrepresent or misunderstand something that is riddled with internal contradictions and absurdities?

See the above link to Genesis chapter one, from my site, unfinished but enough material there to give you a detailed explanation. The contradictions and absurdities come from theology, which is different from Biblical. Alexander the Great had a profound influence on Jewish thinking, beginning in 332 BCE. Constantine the Great had the same impact on Christianity in 325 CE. Both political, but convoluting the teachings of the Bible. The immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, hell from Dante/Milton, Christmas from Saturnalia, Easter from Astarte, the rapture from Darby. The Bible doesn't teach any of that nonsense. But "skeptics" seem to think so. If there is a good reason for that, other than ideological fixation, it would be the syncretistic nature or religion.

Yes, the noble lie. Dionysius before Christ.

Latin pia fraus; pious fraud. The idea that the Bible "ripped off" it's content isn't very well thought out.

Unfortunately religion does have such an impact on culture, but the impact is really nothing when it comes to doing science.

Oh, I strongly disagree. Religion and science are both potentially, powerfully destructive - the crusades, inquisition, nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction, eugenics - but they are also equally, compellingly corruptable. It's a matter of ecconomic, social and political incentive. Neither religion nor science are sentient. They are fallible people, subject to greed, lust, power.

 

[RIS]

Could you summarize those videos? I believe the rules here even require doing so.

God vs Nothing and Nothing makes sense.

 

[pood]

The bible has an “explanation” of how we came to be here? I must have missed that. What is it?

Genesis chapter 1

That is not an “explanation” of how we came to be, it is rather an empty, unevidenced assertion. Tell me what the “explanation” is.

Science, by contrast, has an explanation of how species arise, and while it does not have as yet an explanation of abiogenesis, it has many good ideas that perhaps someday will be testable.

In what way? How can one misrepresent or misunderstand something that is riddled with internal contradictions and absurdities?

See the above link to Genesis chapter one, from my site, unfinished but enough material there to give you a detailed explanation. The contradictions and absurdities come from theology, which is different from Biblical. Alexander the Great had a profound influence on Jewish thinking, beginning in 332 BCE. Constantine the Great had the same impact on Christianity in 325 CE. Both political, but convoluting the teachings of the Bible. The immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, hell from Dante/Milton, Christmas from Saturnalia, Easter from Astarte, the rapture from Darby. The Bible doesn't teach any of that nonsense. But "skeptics" seem to think so. If there is a good reason for that, other than ideological fixation, it would be the syncretistic nature or religion.

The bible is a vast hodgepodge of mythological notions that had roots and precedents in earlier cultures and were subsequently shaped by later interpretations and narratives. That’s hardly surprising.

Yes, the noble lie. Dionysius before Christ.

Latin pia fraus; pious fraud. The idea that the Bible "ripped off" it's content isn't very well thought out.

Not sure what you mean by ripped off, but the Dionysus precedent for christ is pretty clear as is the idea of the pious fraud in Christianity.

Unfortunately religion does have such an impact on culture, but the impact is really nothing when it comes to doing science.

Oh, I strongly disagree. Religion and science are both potentially, powerfully destructive - the crusades, inquisition, nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction, eugenics - but they are also equally, compellingly corruptable. It's a matter of ecconomic, social and political incentive. Neither religion nor science are sentient. They are fallible people, subject to greed, lust, power.

I think this is beside the point. Of course science can be destructive and scientists are fallible. What I want to know is whether Peterson thinks that science, qua science, is somehow influenced by mythology. What mythology influences the concepts of the blind watchmaker or the selfish gene, for example?

 

[pood]

Could you summarize those videos? I believe the rules here even require doing so.

God vs Nothing and Nothing makes sense.

That isn’t much of a summary. Could you elaborate? What does “God vs. nothing” mean, exactly? Clearly there is something — we are here and it is all around us — but what has that to do with any god or gods?