You won't find God in the dictionary.

Homepage Forums Atheism You won't find God in the dictionary.

This topic contains 171 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 1 year, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 172 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27325

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    The thing about the “concept” of the “reality” of God is that it’s like trying to guess what went on before the Big Bang – essentially unknowable from within our limited frame of reference.  If a God entity existed, then it would be completely unlike anything we already know about.

    #27326

    Davis
    Moderator

    The thing about the “concept” of the “reality” of God

    Why don’t we repeat this again: The thing about the “concept” of the “reality” of God. One more time so we can wrap out mind around this: The thing about the “concept” of the “reality” of God. Can any sentence that begins with “The thing about the “concept” of the “reality” of… ” result in any thing useful or meaningful? Do we use such diarrhea language in any other moment than when we purposefully try to avoid defining something? When we don’t want our claims to stand up to scrutiny. One more time:

    The thing about the “concept” of the “reality” of God

    Zheesh. Holy crap. Leaping lizards.

    #27327

    Davis
    Moderator

    Thre is a huge difference between using parables to teach lessons with CLAIMING THOSE PARABLES ARE TRUE AND BASING OUR WORLD VIEW AND LEGAL STRUCTURE ON THEM. Come on. This is basic obvious stuff here. A revealed holy text passage is not the same as the Tortoise and the hare. Using a known fantasy to make theoretical lessons DOES NOT EQUAL MAKING UNDEFINED TRUTH CLAIMS ABIUT INVISIBLE POWERFUL ENTITIES.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #27329

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    essentially unknowable from within our limited frame of reference.

    Any concept we can have would necessarily fall a long way short of total understanding, like looking at parts of the elephant.

    #27330

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Ahhhh yes, you are correct this time,  god IS an elephant.

    #27331

    Only where they seek to explain the physical world, which religion doesn’t need to concern itself with…..

    But the  thing is that religion, all religions, DO concern themselves with explanations of the physical world .  Both the Bible and Quran open with the same creation story.  It is a theists core belief that their God created the Universe and everything in it.

    Other than that, religion has a major spiritual side that science doesn’t have….

    Like I wrote in the post spiritual = supernatural.  Spiritual is another word theists won’t define.

    Things are not mystical or spiritual. Those terms are just other words for supernatural.  That is they are unnatural or not natural. We humans can only work with natural world because that is what we exist in.

     

     

    #27332

    But what about a 4 year old. Would you expect to read them a line from a Dawkins book to make them feel better about something they are struggling with?

    No, I would talk with them to help them make sense of what is upsetting them. It usually works when I have done but to be honest I seldom am in a position to do so. I wait until they are at least 7 years old before I give them Dawkins books. The one about the Magic of Reality is always appreciated. Others are in the pipeline for Christmas :-). I find getting to them young is the key to encouraging them to think critically and to learn how to improve their reasoning skills which would piss the Jesuits right off! I should do a deal with Amazon and bulk buy them! Over 50 given at this point. The ones that are now in their teenage years are all atheists and very well ground respectful human beings.

    Would I let a priest or pastor come to the assistance of a 4 year old? Why have most cultures got religious traditions? I will let Dr. D.M. Brooks (1933) answer:

    I execrate the enslavement of the mind of our young children by the ecclesiastics. Is anything so pitiful to behold as the firm grasp that the Church places on the mind of the youngest of children? Children at play, children of four and five years of age, will be heard to mention with fearful tones various religious rites, such as baptism and confirmation, and to perform in their manner these rites with their dolls. Fear, instilled into the minds of the impressionable children!

    Think of the degradation that the ecclesiastics practice when they insist that from the time a child is out of its infancy its instruction shall be placed in their hands. They take the most precious possession of man, his mind, and mould it to their desire. The mind of a child is plastic, it is like a moist piece of clay and they mould it and form it to their desire. Warped and poured into the ecclesiastic mould of fear, the mind of the child becomes set and fixed with the years.

    Then it is too late for rational thinking, as far as religious matters go, the mind of the adult is firmly set in the form that the ecclesiastic has fashioned for him in his youth. It is impossible for the adult so taught to reason clearly and rationally concerning his religion; the mould is too strong, the clay has set and reason cannot penetrate into that hardened form. That is why it is almost impossible for the adult who has been exposed to this mental moulding from his infancy to break away from the fears and superstitions learned on his mother’s knee.

    If Christianity or any other creed is true, its truth must be more apparent at the age of twenty-five than it is at the age of five. Why does the ecclesiastic not leave off his advances until the child reaches a mature age, an age when he can reason? Then, if theism is true, he can accept it with a reasoning mind, not a blind faithful mind. The theist realizes, however, that belief is at one pole, reason at the other. Belief, creed, religion, are ideations of the primitive mind and the mind of the child; reason is the product of mature thought. Schopenhauer remarked that, “The power of religious dogma when inculcated early is such as to stifle conscience, compassion, and finally every feeling of humanity.”

    It is an undeniable fact that if the clergy would but leave their tainted hands off the minds of our children until they would have reached a mature age, there would be no religious instinct.

    Religious instinct is a myth. Give me but two generations of people who have not been subjected to this religious influence in childhood, and there will be a race of atheists.

    #27334

    Ivy
    Participant

    They had these concepts (yes, concepts) because we were a ignorant species for thousands of years. Because we had none of the correct answers for why we had famines or flooding or volcanic activity, the “concept” of gods arose because we prefer an answer, even a wrong one, to none at all.

    Yes, the famous “god of the gaps” argument….That was someone’s opinion. And it’s just that – an opinion. The argument itself is extraordinarily weak, and fails to account for why our brains have evolved towards religious belief.

     

    If you had seriously undertaken a study of the history of religion and the evolution of belief this would be self-evident. But Christians barely know the history of how their Bible was compiled, never mind making an effort to study religion itself.

    I’m really surprised you of all people would resort to an ad hominem direction of our discussion and seemingly claim to know what I have or haven’t studied to arrive at my conclusions – and then take it a step further and twist the subject towards specifically the Christian Faith. And I would think it would be self-evident that the history of religion, the evolution of belief, and the method of how the Bible was compiled are three distinct and separate rabbit trails leading away from my original point which has to do with your assessment of Jordan Peterson’s words….which had to do with the utility of how mythological archetypes have aided learning and provided certain physical and psychological protections to aid our species in survival, and is rooted in how we have become the “fittest” to survive in environments where all odds were stacked against us.

    I think they are all mistaken.

    And that is your subjective opinion. If you want to rub against the grain of how all societies have survived, and if you think that honestly the way even our BRAINS have evolved isn’t at all even a sliver of any sort of evidence towards the existence of ANYTHING….And you want to hedge your bets on the “god of the gaps” theory made by some 19th century philosopher…again…that’s an opinion. You have just as much lack of evidence for your claims as anyone else.

    It has actually contributed to our evolution overtime and aided our survival…

    Since we have now figured out the psychology of “god belief” we no longer need religion to answer any questions….

    That is also your opinion. There’s plenty evidence to the contrary.

    Religious beliefs did help us evolve to an extent when we in our infancy but the organized religions of the last 2000 years have not.

    Religious belief (belief in any sort of god in general) and organized religion is not the same thing. And that 19th century philosopher that you so heavily give credence to and base your entire philosophy of life around himself pointed out that there was and always has been a distinction. Organized religion has caused the most atrocious of human behavior. It has also been the source of a lot of good. Organized religion is ultimately carried out by human beings. And it is human beings that has the capacity to hurt each other that is the problem. Whether it is in the name of a God, or out of a mob mentality under a psychopathic leader, or any other type of stupidity, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter why we do stupid things. We don’t need organized religion to hurt each other. If you don’t believe me look at how for example Native American tribes fought against each other, and they did not have organized religion.

    No, I would talk with them to help them make sense of what is upsetting them.

    You can only talk to a child to the extent that their brain has developed to understand you. For some extremely difficult topics, it is better to demonstrate your points through a story. I am actually curious about this. If for example you were charged with the task of having to sit down in front of a four-year-old child, your two-year-old sibling, And if you were put in the position of having to look them in the eyes and explain to them why they were put in a cage to never be able to see their parents again… I’m curious what you would say and how you would say it. I mean that really. What would you say?

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Ivy.
    #27336

    Davis
    Moderator

    Simon, Dawkins book is not a guide to anything. It is a refutation of stupid childish bullshit that charlatans try to say is true (in the orworldly AND the world and morality we inhabit). If people weren’t brainwashed about a stupid thingstno tried to impose their lunatic laws based on it…Dawkins wouldn’t have to write it and no one would need to read it. You seem to have this unshakable view that books and ideas must also give you a guide to life and instruct you on how to live…and that if a guide to life does provide advice you find valuable (or already believe) then it’s okay to accept that as ontological correct despite a lack of evidence, non babble arguments or any meaningful argument at all. Reg could not be any more right. Truth works. Of course fantasy can work like an Aesop fable (can be comforting). But when you tell  the story it gives a moral lesson…it doesn’t try to communicate that tortoises and rabbits can talk nor have an alterior motive like brainwashing the kid of some invisible entity that loves you exists. Dawkins refutes bullshit and no more should be expected of him.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Davis.
    #27337

    The argument itself is extraordinarily weak, and fails to account for why our brains have evolved towards religious belief.

    Our brains have not. If people studied the evolution and psychology of religious belief then yes, it would be patently clear that religious belief is not evolved. It only survives because it is indoctrinated into children or because people cannot think critically. That is why so many people think they can communicate with their version of the Creator of the Universe and because they believe this god is real, but which they cannot define, that “He” will make them immortal.

    Please define the God you believe exists if it is not the Biblical one or not the one that comes from organized religion.

    #27339

     

    While I disagree that we have evolved to be religious or have a “god gene”, I do accept that we have evolved to be pattern seeking animals. We have evolved to attribute agency to the world around us. We have come up with supernatural answers when we knew no better from the time we were a primitive species. This is how religious belief came started. We invented gods to fill the many gaps in our knowledge. We knew no better. But if we knew then what we know now, we would no longer need to invent them.

    #27340

    Ivy
    Participant

    Our brains have not. If people studied the evolution and psychology of religious belief then yes, it would be patently clear that religious belief is not evolved. It only survives because it is indoctrinated into children or because people cannot think critically.

     

    You are positively wrong and here is my scientific evidence to back up my claim:

    Researchers who study the psychology and neuroscience of religion are helping to explain why such beliefs are so enduring. They’re finding that religion may, in fact, be a byproduct of the way our brains work, growing from cognitive tendencies to seek order from chaos, to anthropomorphize our environment and to believe the world around us was created for our use.

    Religion has survived, they surmise, because it helped us form increasingly larger social groups, held together by common beliefs.

    Source: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Ivy.
    #27342

    Ivy
    Participant
    #27343

    Ivy
    Participant

    Please define the God you believe exists if it is not the Biblical one or not the one that comes from organized religion.

    I don’t know what or who God is. But I know there is not nothing.

    #27344

    Ivy
    Participant

    We have evolved to attribute agency to the world around us

    It’s not just about agency or being pattern seeking. You’re forgetting the social forces behind the way that religion has helped us survive

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 172 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.