How about a God that is fair?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Most atheists I know have given up on the possibility of any kind of God, even a God associated with no dogma, because these legitimately righteous people could no longer stomache believing in a God that often lets bad people get ahead in life while good people take the big hits. Such an unfair God's existence is too ego-centric for both the ex-believer and in a way the ex-believed in. In their hearts as well as their minds they know that no God worthy of that epithet would behave in such an unworthy way.

But are these especially righteous atheists not assuming and/or concluding that the only possible kind of God is one that is an (unacceptable to really righteous people) unfair one?

This what I mean...

In the home, a parent who is always fair is better than a parent who often shows favoritism. At school, a teacher who is always fair is better than a teacher who often shows favoritism. In the workplace, a manager who is always fair is better than one who often shows favoritism. And during sports events a "judge & jury" umpire or referee who is always fair is better than one who often shows favoritism.

So how about a God that is always fair instead of a God who shows favoritism per those who suck up to it in differents ways such as by praying to it, following its rituals, and obeying its god-given commandments? If there is a kind of God that is always and in all ways fair, what might that God be like? I think it would be a lot like the kind of natural simultaneously continuous and discrete computer operating system described along the lines of http://Neo-GNOSIS.org.

Even if not, I think the idea of a God that is always and in all ways fair (while pissing off religionists of all stripes) makes great sense scientifically at least in the same way that today's search for a general unifying principle makes sense -- as it satisfies our perhaps more well-tuned into ultimate reality than we imagine need to find some common thread of logic running through all natural phenomena.

[Benguin]

A god can be good, bad, fair, ugly or into marshmallows for all I care.

The existence of a god is a very different from the question of whether such a god is good or not.

Existence of the god claimed by judeo-christian beliefs depends on him being omnibenevolent, amongst other things. Accordingly, if it can be demonstrated an omni-benevolent god doesn't exist, then that god doesn't exist.

A parsimonious (or even evil) god is a far easier theological position to defend but still falls apart under scrutiny.

[jimlintott]

Most atheists I know have given up on the possibility of any kind of God, even a God associated with no dogma, because these legitimately righteous people could no longer stomache believing in a God that often lets bad people get ahead in life while good people take the big hits.

I know that you don't know me, but I have never believed in gods, so I have given up nothing.

I have never believed because I have never encountered any type of clear, and agreed upon, defintion of what a god really is. Forget the lack of any evidence. How can there possibly be any evidence for something that isn't defined?

I'd recognise a unicorn if I saw one. How would I recognise a god, even if I encounter one?

[Dymanic]

yawyna si siht teppupkcos esohw rednow I

[Sindai]

Dynamic is very perceptive. I hadn't noticed that...

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Dymanic
yawyna si siht teppupkcos esohw rednow I
mmmmH

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by jimlintott


I know that you don't know me, but I have never believed in gods, so I have given up nothing.

I have never believed because I have never encountered any type of clear, and agreed upon, defintion of what a god really is. Forget the lack of any evidence. How can there possibly be any evidence for something that isn't defined?

I'd recognise a unicorn if I saw one. How would I recognise a god, even if I encounter one?

Not really. You'd only recognize a uni-corn if you knew what to look for and where to look for it. For example, if uni-corns despite their name were two horned magical cows, not one horned horses, you'd never recognize them as such -- even if one of them stepped on your foot to get your attention.

Yes, I know that for the sake od discussiion I am changing the description of a unicorn. On the other hand trusting in the advice of fools and knaves whether it's about God or unicorns or anything else is much the same thing -- at best lazy thinking and at worst just plain stupid.

[triadboy]

Your wording is strange:

Originally posted by pupcos
Most atheists I know have given up on the possibility...
(Italics mine)

This shows hope...as if I'm searching.

...of any kind of God, even a God associated with no dogma

Gods aren't needed.

...because these legitimately righteous people could no longer stomache believing in a God that often lets bad people get ahead in life while good people take the big hits. Such an unfair God's existence is too ego-centric for both the ex-believer and in a way the ex-believed in. In their hearts as well as their minds they know that no God worthy of that epithet would behave in such an unworthy way.

I'm an atheist and this has nothing to do with my reason for nonbelief. I didn't even consider that aspect of the problem.

But are these especially righteous atheists not assuming and/or concluding that the only possible kind of God is one that is an (unacceptable to really righteous people) unfair one?

Zuruthustra had a better one: There are two gods - one evil and one good. This is much more believable for an atheist. ;)

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Dymanic
yawyna si siht teppupkcos esohw rednow I I'm sorry, Satan, but I couldn't tell you if I knew.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by pupcos


Not really. You'd only recognize a uni-corn if you knew what to look for and where to look for it. For example, if uni-corns despite their name were two horned magical cows, not one horned horses, you'd never recognize them as such -- even if one of them stepped on your foot to get your attention.

Yes, I know that for the sake od discussiion I am changing the description of a unicorn. On the other hand trusting in the advice of fools and knaves whether it's about God or unicorns or anything else is much the same thing -- at best lazy thinking and at worst just plain stupid.

So I can redefine god as a spotted toad and claim that god exists?
We all know the common definition of a unicorn, and some of us may know similiar animals from other rfolklore and myth, like the Japanese Kirin. But even if unicorns were really 2 horned magical cows, they'd be magical, or they'd just be cows with horns. What makes them magical? Can they disappear? Can they talk? If such a critter presented itself to a sceptic, you can bet he or she would recognize that something unusual was there, whether is was a unicorn or an alien or a robot car smasher.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


So I can redefine god as a spotted toad and claim that god exists?
We all know the common definition of a unicorn, and some of us may know similiar animals from other rfolklore and myth, like the Japanese Kirin. But even if unicorns were really 2 horned magical cows, they'd be magical, or they'd just be cows with horns. What makes them magical? Can they disappear? Can they talk? If such a critter presented itself to a sceptic, you can bet he or she would recognize that something unusual was there, whether is was a unicorn or an alien or a robot car smasher.

Not necessarily. If you came upon a one-horned horse that did absolutely nothing magical in your presence, you would still be very likely to believe that you had found a uni-corn, even though it evidenced no magical properties. You'd just conclude that while they have no magical properties uni-corns do exist. OTOH, if you came upon a two horned uni-corn that looked exactly like a cow, you would not know that you had come upon a uni-corn even if it did evidence magical properties. You would conclude that some cows have magical properties.

The simple fact is that whether or not uni-corns exist, the best way to hide them would be change the description of them. That's the best way to hide anything or anyone. Looking for God and not finding God might be like that. I.e., describing God as a unique universal deity that favors those who believe in and follow that deity is a really cool way to misdirect both believers and atheists alike away from seeing a kind of not always kind God that has no favorites. (It would be like looking for gravitational effects with a volt-meter. After a while, you'd bet the farm that there was no such thing as gravity.) Why the possibility of such a misdirection? Simply because it would not take long for folks to figure out that there is no way gravity wants you to pray to it, follow its commandsments, and pay money to its priests. The same thing would be true about and for a God that doesn't play favorites.

[Benguin]

Actually, if I were to conclude it was a unicorn based only on it looking like a horse with a horn on it's head, that would be a bit of a presumptuous conclusion.

Even assuming it was biologically identical to a horse with something akin to a narwhal tusk stuck to it there is no reason to suppose it has anything more than the appearance of a unicorn.

None of the descriptions we have are regarded as first-hand accounts, AFAIK. I can't assume that this creature would have any other attributes relating it to the mythical unicorn without further investigation.

We'd probably end up calling it one anyway.

In the case of a God (or this one), it's meant to be omnipotent and omniscient so it shouldn't have any trouble at all convincing you what it is should you meet it. In fact, it should already have done so, regardless of what it might look like. To go back to the original post, if it was an all knowing, all powerful, all-good being then it find an unambiguous and peaceful way to convince us of its existence rather than playing silly games with folk.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by pupcos
Most atheists I know ...
Strawman sophistry.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by pupcos
But are these especially righteous atheists not assuming and/or concluding that the only possible kind of God is one that is an (unacceptable to really righteous people) unfair one?
I doubt atheists develope their beliefs because they think God is mean.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I doubt atheists develope their beliefs because they think God is mean.

Most righteous atheists are teenagers who decide to rebel against their devout parent' church. Or they were members of a church and got burned. I've seen people who will bash and make fun of Christians in the name of atheism, but definitley have a chip on their shoulder that they aquired from ther faith somewhere along the line.

I have no animosity towards the christian god. I don't think he exists. I think followers of the christian faith are as much of a mixed bag as the rest of humanity. Some good, some bad, and most just stumbling through life like the rest of us.

[evildave]

A god that was in all ways "fair" would not heed petty petitions to grant favors to people in the game. When the rules play out and are not favorable to someone, they were dealt a tough hand, so they will have to play it.

A "fair" god would not act on prayer, or play favorites with believers. A god that was in all ways "fair" would not act to do anything to change the game state in play, just as a "fair" card game would not have cards introduced and removed.

In other words, a totally "fair" god would be indistinguishable from "no" god, thus such a god is surplus to explanations and predictions.

Parsimony wins.

I certainly don't believe tiny blue elephants are involved with the inner workings of my computer, because they're surplus to the electronic theory that does an adequate job of explaining and predicting, so why ass/u/me gods are at work in this, or other processes?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by evildave
[A "fair" god would not act on prayer, or play favorites with believers.



Amen


A god that was in all ways "fair" would not act to do anything to change the game state in play, just as a "fair" card game would not have cards introduced and removed.


Hallalluyah. go Evil Dave!


In other words, a totally "fair" god would be indistinguishable from "no" god, thus such a god is surplus to explanations and predictions.

Parsimony wins.



Evil Dave, I don't think you are quite right about that. But you may very well be.

What I mean is that while a totally "fair" God as you say would of course be indistinuishable from no conventionally conceived and espoused deity, I don't think that a totally fair God necessarily means that no kind of God is possible at all. I think it simply means that in order to have a totally fair God, one has to modify what we mean by "God". Which admittedly is as much of a bummer to those who don't believe in any kind of God as it is a bummer to those who believe in a God that plays favorites.



I certainly don't believe tiny blue elephants are involved with the inner workings of my computer, because they're surplus to the electronic theory that does an adequate job of explaining and predicting,


so why ass/u/me gods are at work in this, or other processes? [/B]

How about for the same reason that your computer has a computer operating system that operates above and under your individual apps' behaviors as if the OS were a transcendent and imminent fair God per those apps?

I think that what you are saying is what an application program would say if it had the capacity to think about but chose not to wonder about what was causing all of those interrupts and fetches, etc. that it was occasionally experiencing? Assuming it was: a) aware of OS activities and b) could talk as well as think.

BTW, can I assume you think Ed Fredkin and Stephen Wolfram are both quite wrong?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by evildave
In other words, a totally "fair" god would be indistinguishable from "no" god, thus such a god is surplus to explanations and predictions.

Bravo! :clap:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by evildave
In other words, a totally "fair" god would be indistinguishable from "no" god, thus such a god is surplus to explanations and predictions.

The Eastern religions (East of Iran) don't see gods as being "out there". God is the unmentionable Oneness that is everything. Once you name God - you are now speaking of manifestations of the one true Unknowable.

I think the eastern religions have a much more elegant belief. There's no tribal god cursing them through generations.

[Correa Neto]

Belief is the key word here...

So far, no conclusive evidence for the existence of a god has been presented. Sure, there may be a god, "the god of the gaps" similar to what you are proposing. Or an unreachable deity that created the universe and "moved away" observing its evolution but not interferring.

As for the "magical cows that do nothing when in presence of skeptics", this reminds me of the common argument that "disbelief in psi leads to experimental outcomes that are negative regarding the existence of the phenomena". No experiment done by belivers in the paranormal have produced credible repoductible favorable results- what would be happilly accepted by those who do not belive in paranormal phenomena. The same line of reasoning is valid for god. If someone who belives in god managed to provide the evidence, it will be wellcome and people will change their minds. So far, no evidence has been presented other than speculation. So, those who belive in god, have nothing but belief and speculations to base their faith. And this should not be mixed with science.

When investigated, all concepts of god can be shown to be flawed, leading to dead ends quite quickly. To solve these dead ends, complex contructs are created, that are even more frail than the original concept. And introducting a god, even a distant and ureachable one, actually seems to bring extra complications to science.

edited for typos

[csense]

Originally posted by evildave
...a totally "fair" god would be indistinguishable from "no" god...

Assuming for a moment that God exists, if fairness means answering no petitions, then is it not reasonble to conclude that fairness could also mean answering all petitions. And since it is conceivable that one could petition God to negate it's own existence, then answering all petitions is not equal to granting all petitions.

The question now becomes, what is a fair petition in God's eyes

[evildave]

Originally posted by pupcos



How about for the same reason that your computer has a computer operating system that operates above and under your individual apps' behaviors as if the OS were a transcendent and imminent fair God per those apps?

I think that what you are saying is what an application program would say if it had the capacity to think about but chose not to wonder about what was causing all of those interrupts and fetches, etc. that it was occasionally experiencing? Assuming it was: a) aware of OS activities and b) could talk as well as think.

BTW, can I assume you think Ed Fredkin and Stephen Wolfram are both quite wrong?

The 'operating system' within a computer is based no more or less on electronic theory than the rest of the computer. The CPU manipulates state the way it's wired to. The OS gives the CPU some state to manipulate to decide how to operate on other state.

The notion of the universe as a computer simulation has been applied by me in the past. It is a useful model.

Until Ed Fredkin has more evidence for his 'substrate' hypothesis, his hypothesis is simply his hypothesis. Insisting that the universe must have a binary component at its core seems silly, and appears to disregard all of the analog observations made so far.

Stephen Wolfram seems to want to define a paradigm for science to overlay a computer model on top of the universe to help understand it. Super. Useful concept, but not in any way new.

The rub is, a notion that the universe is a computer simulation because it can be thought of like a computer simulation, is a bit like insisting that a Jaguar automobile is a cat because it is named after a cat.

[evildave]

Originally posted by csense


Assuming for a moment that God exists, if fairness means answering no petitions, then is it not reasonble to conclude that fairness could also mean answering all petitions. And since it is conceivable that one could petition God to negate it's own existence, then answering all petitions is not equal to granting all petitions.

The question now becomes, what is a fair petition in God's eyes

Why make an assumption like 'god exists', if we should not assume that invisibly tiny blue elephants push bits around in my computer? Of course, a consistant theory substituting electrons with tiny blue elephants, and such could "work", just as a theory of the universe being a big computer can "work".

Why add a complicating factor like a deity with 'root' privileges on the cosmos?

I have no evidence for a god granting favors on demand, or any favors at all. Therefore, a real god who granted "all favors" would've smitten me down days ago when Riddick had his latest meltdown.

To expand on the universe operating as a computer, with a god playing 'root', we could say that the great god 'root' could 'rm -rf' a whole planet if root wanted to. Firthermore 'root' could not only 'save', but 'restore'.... but treating the cosmos as a simulation, doing 'favors' for people is cheating, and generally invalidates whatever the purpose of the simulation was supposed to be; be that fair play or to find out something important.

Having been involved in game admin decisions in the past, I can vouch for the hazards of granting player petitions. You risk unbalancing a simulation that took a lot of time and effort to construct just to get a little smiley in a chat box. Not at all worth it. Sure, if you're 'omnipotent root', you can change whatever you like. You aren't going to generally want to, and the sorts of things you have to change are seldom going to be what the users are complaining about; quite the inverse, usually.

[csense]

Why make an assumption like 'god exists'...

We make that assumption for the purpose of inquiry, otherwise, what is the point of philosophical discourse...





...if we should not assume that invisibly tiny blue elephants push bits around in....


Yes, exactly...what's the point.

God doesn't exist. End of story. See ya later.

[Joe_Black]

ego causes the suffering not God.

[jimlintott]

Not really. You'd only recognize a uni-corn if you knew what to look for and where to look for it. For example, if uni-corns despite their name were two horned magical cows, not one horned horses, you'd never recognize them as such -- even if one of them stepped on your foot to get your attention.

You are missing my point. While the most familiar unicorn is a horse like creature with a single horn it could be a magical cow. Why an animal with two horns would have 'uni' in its name puzzles me but it is irrelevant. You still have a description or definition.

Now provide one so that I will know when I encounter a god.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jimlintott




Now provide one so that I will know when I encounter a god.
Will a photo do?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004STUA.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by jimlintott


You are missing my point. While the most familiar unicorn is a horse like creature with a single horn it could be a magical cow. Why an animal with two horns would have 'uni' in its name puzzles me but it is irrelevant. You still have a description or definition.

Now provide one so that I will know when I encounter a god.

It is not irrelevant! Indeed, it is the essence of this threat, I mean thread. ;-)

Another example... the reason that Cinderella has glass slippers instead of fur slippers -- which I think you will agree would make a lot more sense -- is that the word in the original story for fur was mistranslated into the word for "glass". See www.floresville.isd.tenet.edu/elementary/fes/ if you do not believe me.

If such tiny changes produce such great changes in meaning, why is it not possible that perhaps for a number of silly and nefarious reasons (silly laities, nefarious priests), the word "God" has come down to us to strongly mean something very deep and dumb in our sub-consciousnesses, i.e., the ridiculous meme of a deity that plays favorites -- as opposed to a real principal principle every change in nature conforms to -- incuding when we change our minds) -- along the lines of modern science's GUT. Or saying it another way a scientific concept that is in logical and experiential accord with this thread's epithet, A Gut Gott that always plays fair?

At least that is what I am willing to speculate about what may or may not have happened. Interestingly, at least for me, it is an unconventional anti-orthodox belief shared and expanded upon in the often silly but not likely to be nefarious website called http://Neo-GNOSIS.org which is obviously for extra-highly speculative Free Masons like me, not the average atheist on this forum.

[Chanileslie]

Atheists don't believe in any god, not because we don't like a particular god, but because there is no evidence or reason to believe myths to be real.

[Anders]

Originally posted by pupcos

So how about a God that is always fair instead of a God who shows favoritism per those who suck up to it in differents ways such as by praying to it, following its rituals, and obeying its god-given commandments?
Ehhh...Nope....doesn't make me wanna believe in any supernatural "thing".

And speaking about god. Why always this Christianity-centred debate? Why don’t we debate the old Egyptian belief system, which was not only older but also more a complicated faith. Or the Japanese shinto? Or islam?

No, there is no need for the god-hypothesis. Gods can’t explain our world. The belief in Amon and Horus is as logical as the belief in the christian or Islamic god.

There are simply no gods! End of debate really. Kind of boring, but nonetheless true! So, people, go home, read a book, watch TV, or do something more useful than debating about something that’s not really there.

Just kidding! Keep on debating with the religious! It’s actually quite fun.

It strikes me, that debating or discussing religion is basically the same as discussing Dungeons&Dragons, or Star Trek or Wars. All those have the exact same structure as any religion. You have your scriptures, you have the believers, you have the gatherings. The only difference between, for instance islam and the role-playing-game Dungeons&Dragons, is that islamic extremist tend to want kill infidels, while extremist Dungeons&Dragons players just become pale and foul-smelling ;-). islamic extremist buys everything that the priests writes, while the Dungeons&Dragons players buys everything that the writers at Wizards of the coast puts out.

[csense]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Atheists don't believe in any god, not because we don't like a particular god, but because there is no evidence or reason to believe myths to be real.

A myth in and of itself is that which is not real, so your conclusion does not follow. It would be like saying atheists don't believe in any God...because there is no evidence or reason to believe that which is not real, to be real
...and since it is self evident that there can not be evidence for that which does not exist, we can now condense this into a short logical form, which would read atheists don't believe in God because God doesn't exist

You would make a much better argument if you just stated there there is no evidence, period, as such: Atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence....but then, this would be more of an agnostic statement than it would be an atheist statement, since it would not explain the passion in the denial that is prevalent amongst the atheist community.

Maybe there is something in your initial statement that does explain this passionate denial, but of which, you also deny.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by csense


A myth in and of itself is that which is not real ...


From whence do you derive this definition of a myth?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes
From whence do you derive this definition of a myth?

I agree with Diogenes. A myth is not a lie. A myth is the dream of a society. The myth reassociates a people back with nature through the use of symbols that are interpreted by the subconscious.

In today's high-tech world - we've lost the meaning of these mythological symbols.

Does anyone really believe a virgin birth can occur? Of course not. The mythological symbol of a virgin birth is of a spiritually pure birth.

Does anyone really believe there was an actual Garden of Eden? I hope not. This symbol represents a corner of your mind.

Originally posted by csense
...since it would not explain the passion in the denial that is prevalent amongst the atheist community.

That's a funny way to phrase it - "passion in the denial". My passion is not born for the benefit of Atheism. I do have a passion for helping people get over the God rut though. But this may just be my helpful nature. If I help someone drop the bondage of religion - they are free. Atheism has not won them over - they just see reality now.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by csense


..... since it would not explain the passion in the denial that is prevalent amongst the atheist community.



I have found the passion to lie with the believing community with regard to what it means to be an Atheist.. It appears they haven't a clue; which of course is understandable when you consider their current delusion..

I also agree with Triadboy regarding the freedom that Atheism entails.

The incredible irony, is that believers believe somehow, that the non-believers are passionate about nothing..:confused:

" The Emperor's New Clothes ' anyone?

[csense]

Originally posted by Diogenes


From whence do you derive this definition of a myth?

___
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus

Entry Word: myth
Function: noun
Text: 1 a traditional story of ostensibly historical content whose origin has been lost <the various Greek myths that have come down to us>
Synonyms legend, mythos, mythus; compare ALLEGORY 2
Related Word saga; fable, fabrication, fiction, figment; creation, invention
2
Synonyms ALLEGORY 2, apologue, fable, parable
3
Synonyms LORE 2, folklore, legend, mythology, mythos, tradition



I understand very well that semantics is an important part of philosophy, it is however, very easy to get lost within it, either intentionally or not, in which case, don't expect me to follow.

If you feel that my grasp of it's meaning is either flawed or not applicable, then ask yourself, if it ever came to be that the Greek/Roman God Apollo was shown to exist, would it still be a mythical God?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by csense


___
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus

Entry Word: myth
Function: noun
Text: 1 a traditional story of ostensibly historical content whose origin has been lost <the various Greek myths that have come down to us>
Synonyms legend, mythos, mythus; compare ALLEGORY 2
Related Word saga; fable, fabrication, fiction, figment; creation, invention
2
Synonyms ALLEGORY 2, apologue, fable, parable
3
Synonyms LORE 2, folklore, legend, mythology, mythos, tradition



I understand very well that semantics is an important part of philosophy, it is however, very easy to get lost within it, either intentionally or not, in which case, don't expect me to follow.

If you feel that my grasp of it's meaning is either flawed or not applicable, then ask yourself, if it ever came to be that the Greek/Roman God Apollo was shown to exist, would it still be a mythical God?

Excellent.. You are familiar with the dictionary...

One has to really filter your effort to come to the conclusion that ..

myth = not real

So, what was your point in quoting the dictionary?

[evildave]

And as you will learn from snopes (http://www.snopes.com/), only MOST myths and urban legends are false.

Some have a basis in fact, and some few are true.

Only MOST of them are fairy tales that people treat as true.

As always, the key thing that makes such a tale highly suspect is unverifiability, usually in the form of a lack of specific details. Where did it happen? What day? Sounds famous; shouldn't there be a newspaper story about it?

Or rare occasions, it's just that the person recounting the tale simply didn't receive the relevant and specific details, but it "really happened".

Usually it's just that some joker made up the story. That's well into the 90th percentile of the cases.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by csense


A myth in and of itself is that which is not real, so your conclusion does not follow. It would be like saying atheists don't believe in any God...because there is no evidence or reason to believe that which is not real, to be real

I think you got it. Exactly my point.

Originally posted by csense
...and since it is self evident that there can not be evidence for that which does not exist, we can now condense this into a short logical form, which would read atheists don't believe in God because God doesn't exist

And somebody said you weren't all that smart!

Originally posted by csense
You would make a much better argument if you just stated there there is no evidence, period, as such: Atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence....but then, this would be more of an agnostic statement than it would be an atheist statement, since it would not explain the passion in the denial that is prevalent amongst the atheist community.

Nope, Agnosticism is to be not sure there is a god. I am sure that there is no god. No where did I state that I was not sure. But thank you for playing. Rod will explain to the consolation prize that you have won!

Originally posted by csense
Maybe there is something in your initial statement that does explain this passionate denial, but of which, you also deny.

Passionate? Where was the passion? I must have missed it. I made a statement nothing more. There is no god and it is absurd to believe in such. You are reading much too much into my statement. Perhaps your own feelings on this matter.

Here, I will say it again, equally dispassionately, There is no god, and there is no evidence to support such a being. Was that simple enough for you?

[csense]

Originally posted by triadboy


A myth is not a lie.

Well, would this not be evidently so since, of course, a myth is not a lie.

I am not making any moral or ethical statements, and I'm confused as to why you think I am.

[csense]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Excellent.. You are familiar with the dictionary...

One has to really filter your effort to come to the conclusion that ..

myth = not real

So, what was your point in quoting the dictionary?

...I can see I'm done with you:rub:

[csense]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


I think you got it. Exactly my point.



And somebody said you weren't all that smart!



Nope, Agnosticism is to be not sure there is a god. I am sure that there is no god. No where did I state that I was not sure. But thank you for playing. Rod will explain to the consolation prize that you have won!



Passionate? Where was the passion? I must have missed it. I made a statement nothing more. There is no god and it is absurd to believe in such. You are reading much too much into my statement. Perhaps your own feelings on this matter.

Here, I will say it again, equally dispassionately, There is no god, and there is no evidence to support such a being. Was that simple enough for you?

I can see I'm wasting my time here.
I was under the impression that this was a critcal thinking forum, not Romper Room.

I've better things to do.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by csense


Well, would this not be evidently so since, of course, a myth is not a lie.

I am not making any moral or ethical statements, and I'm confused as to why you think I am.

I'm sorry, maybe I misread your previous post. I'm reading Joseph Campbell right now so I'm finely tuned to what a myth is - and your words sounded strange to me.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by triadboy
Your wording is strange:


(Italics mine)

This shows hope...as if I'm searching.

[b]

Gods aren't needed.

[b]

I'm an atheist and this has nothing to do with my reason for nonbelief. I didn't even consider that aspect of the problem.

[b]

Zuruthustra had a better one: There are two gods - one evil and one good. This is much more believable for an atheist. ;)


First triads, and now "the God of Going Away From" and "the God of Coming Towards"! You're beginning to sound like a lot the author of the http://Neo-GNOSIS.org site. :-)

You wouldn't be a closet Neo-GNOStic masquerading as an atheist would you? That's no way for a true atheist to think.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by csense


I can see I'm wasting my time here.
I was under the impression that this was a critcal thinking forum, not Romper Room.

I've better things to do.

Well, perhaps you can come up with something better than attempting to play word games.

[csense]

I'm sorry, maybe I misread your previous post. I'm reading Joseph Campbell right now so I'm finely tuned to what a myth is...

Well, considering it's Joseph Campbell, then maybe you're just becoming finely tuned to what a lie is :)



But, here's your finely tuned understanding of what a myth is:

A myth is the dream of a society. The myth reassociates a people back with nature through the use of symbols that are interpreted by the subconscious

If a myth is the dream of a society, then is democracy a myth...and if also by the use of symbols, does this render our Constitution a myth.

Is a dragon a mythological creature, and if so, how does it correlate with the dream of a society, or reassociate themselves back with nature.


...and your words sounded strange to me.

Right back at ya :)

[JAR]

Originally posted by Benguin
A god can be good, bad, fair, ugly or into marshmallows for all I care.

The existence of a god is a very different from the question of whether such a god is good or not.

I agree. Being that there is no scientific law that a god must be morally perfect, if a god actually did exist, it would be highly unlikely that he'd be morally perfect. If he claims he is, chances are he's lying.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by pupcos


You wouldn't be a closet Neo-GNOStic masquerading as an atheist would you? That's no way for a true atheist to think.

I'm an atheist but I believe xianity began from gnosticism

[jimlintott]

If such tiny changes produce such great changes in meaning, why is it not possible that perhaps for a number of silly and nefarious reasons (silly laities, nefarious priests), the word "God" has come down to us to strongly mean something very deep and dumb in our sub-consciousnesses, i.e., the ridiculous meme of a deity that plays favorites -- as opposed to a real principal principle every change in nature conforms to -- incuding when we change our minds) -- along the lines of modern science's GUT. Or saying it another way a scientific concept that is in logical and experiential accord with this thread's epithet, A Gut Gott that always plays fair?

Is there a description or definition in there somewhere?

Throughout my life I have frequently been asked if I believe in god. I always have to respond "what's that". I've never received a reply that works.

Do you have one?

I get labelled 'athiest' even though I'm not sure what it is I don't believe in.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by jimlintott [/i]




Throughout my life I have frequently been asked if I believe in god. I always have to respond "what's that". I've never received a reply that works.


Your reply is perfectly logical. Their answers don't work for you because you are imposing a higher standard of logic on their answers than their answers contain. That kind of reminds me of something from the Old Testament. In Exedus (if God and Nature's Operating System IS then why not "Exe" instead of "Exo"? :-) Moses is trying to prove to Pharoah that the God of the Jews is more powerful than the gods of Egypt. Moses throws his rod on the floor and it turns into a snake. Now that is a really cool miracle of course. But in itself it turns out to prove nothing. Because then the Egyptian priests throw their rods down on the floor and their rods also turn into snakes. So their miracles cancel out Moses' miracle. But then Mose's snake consumes all the other snakes. Which is usually taken to mean that Moses' God is more powerful than all of the gods of Egypt. But you and I know that that kind of miracle is bull. The typical atheist sees that story in the Bible and says, "This is ridiculous." A Neo-GNOStic sees that story and seems to say, "Aha! The concept of God really being revealed here is a concept of God that subsumes the concept of god held or at least espoused by the various priests."

No guarantee that Neo-GNOStics are right, but that's the kind of speculation building on speculation building on speculation I'm talking about that is at http:Neo-GNOSIS.org .


Do you have one?


There are several definitions of the God That Is Fair that I like. How about this one as a first step? God is to any change from state x to state y what following the working definition of a path is to any journey. I like it because it forces one to think through what a working definition of a working definition is.

I got these off of the web, they might help... First: A working definition is an "operational definition" that establishes comprehensive thresholds or boundaries for inclusion or exclusion from a group or category.

And then this one by William W. Dressler: The phrase, [b]“a working definition,” is something that is encountered frequently in the literature in the social sciences. As an adjective, “working” is usually used in the following sense that appears in Webster’s: something that is “adequate to permit work to be done.” Note the use of the word “adequate.” There is the connotation of a definition that is rough-and-ready, somewhat unrefined, but that will suffice for the moment. At the risk of being accused of making one of those little academic ironic jokes—and if I am so accused, I will confess immediately that I am guilty—I intend to use the phrase in a different way. What I mean to talk about is a definition of culture that works, that can be used as both a theoretical and a methodological tool in understanding—in short, a definition that really does something.

Okay, so what has any of this to do with God. I think plenty, but decide for your self as Dressler ends his talk with this insight: "As the Dutch psychologist Ap Appel noted: “The final discovery a fish can make is that of water. It does not know what it means to live in water until it is lying on the counter of a fish shop. Similarly, people do not realize to what extent their behavior…is rooted in the culture in which they live.” By explicating those links of culture and behavior, we can, I hope, both improve our theoretical understanding of the world, and maybe make it a better place to live.


I think that it is hard to see a God That Is Fair for at least two reasons: first, because it is like water to a fish; but even more so because most people, especially if they are not as moral as they think they are, tend to not want a God that is fair just as most of us would prefer our parents to show favortism to us, and get favoritism from our bosses, our umpires and our judges.

Yet THAT is exactly where the priests of any religion get all of those poor bastards for all they are worth! Because they get trapped into trying to please a God that plays favorites instead of trying to scrutinize a Template of change that every kind of change conforms to. As for the typical atheist, he or she gets self-suckered out of the opportunity to find and get to know the God That Is Fair. At least that's what I believe.




I get labelled 'athiest' even though I'm not sure what it is I don't believe in.

Could it be that you don't believe in any kind of God that shows favoritism at the expense of fairness and common sense logic?
If so, you are very wise because you don't believe in obvious logical inconsistencies.

But also consider this: disbelief in a God that plays favorites does not have to logically require disallowing the possible existence of a God that is fair. Just as being logically afraid of living with a lion in your house does not mean you had better not have a more domesticated cat as a pet. We both know that if therereally is a God, God is no pussy cat.

In any case, finding a God that works for you might be as easy as as reading Neo-GNOSIS.org (which is not very easy reading!) if you aren't afraid of being changed by certain self-realizations and self-revelations about what is never certain.

[Navigator]

G_D is Myth.

This is not to suggest that there is no reason for being

Rather,

That the reasons so far do not amount to anything which ring the bells of truth.

It is an age old question. I personal thing G_D is a scientist - but not just any old scientist.

All the sciences morphed together and then some.
As such. G_D is ever expanding and has little time to dedicate to "Who Am I".

Obviously It already knows the anser to that.

It is of no value to trust the realigious hypocrites to shine a light on "what G_D iz"

I Am G_D.

And I am Myth.


The rest is elementary.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Navigator
I Am G_D.

And I am Myth.


The rest is elementary.
It sounds like your, and Lifegazer's outlooks are very similar.

If god is a scientist - but not just any old scientist.

All the sciences morphed together and then some.

does this mean that god has any powers ?

[Navigator]

Originally posted by The Don

It sounds like your, and Lifegazer's outlooks are very similar.

If god is
does this mean that god has any powers ?

The Short answer is "es" - even though I am not sure of what you mean exactly by 'powers'

Some powers attributed to G_D are merely myth.

Ideally it matters not which powers G_D has ...What powers do you and I have as individuals||?

In this some kind of small token of power can be displayed....otherwise...the universe is certainly enough of a display of power yes?

If "No" or "So what" then *Shrug* what can I say?

[jimlintott]

hey pupcos:

As I mentioned before I am a life long atheist. I have had this type of conversation hundreds of times before with everyone from hard core fundies (including priests and pastors) to very average believers. It unwinds the same way.

I can make little sense from your doublespeak. I certainly see no clear and agreed upon definitions. I will have to do what I always end up doing at this point.

Nod politely and back away slowly.

Have a nice day.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by jimlintott
hey pupcos:

As I mentioned before I am a life long atheist. I have had this type of conversation hundreds of times before with everyone from hard core fundies (including priests and pastors) to very average believers. It unwinds the same way.

I can make little sense from your doublespeak. I certainly see no clear and agreed upon definitions. I will have to do what I always end up doing at this point.

Nod politely and back away slowly.

Have a nice day.


Let's be, ah, fair Jim. If nothing else, it is doubtful you have ever had this type of conversation before. :-) In any case, Max Pax

[scribble]

A fair God doesn't excite me. If there is a God, then He is perfectly fair: he ignores everyone and everything just the same.

Whoop! I say PRAISE THE GREAT IGNORER!

Er... no... fair just isn't fun. If I find there is a Gofd, I don't want him to be Fair. He'd better damn well do sometihng for me.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble
A fair God doesn't excite me. If there is a God, then He is perfectly fair: he ignores everyone and everything just the same.


Are you being silly, or just ignorant?

You equate being fair with ignoring. That is obviously not a valid representation of other aspects of reality. For example, in any sport an umpire or referee who is fair is definitely not ignoring what is happening. On the contrary, he (or she) is constantly judging what is happening.


Whoop! I say PRAISE THE GREAT IGNORER!


Okay, silly. :-)


Er... no... fair just isn't fun. If I find there is a Gofd, I don't want him to be Fair. He'd better damn well do sometihng for me.

okay, now you are being extremely insightful. I think that you have hit it on the head. People want their god to not be fair but rather to be influenced by prayers, rituals, good deeds... As long as people are patiently waiting for their God to be come around and be nice to them they continue to believe. When they have had enough of waiting they find their version of religion which is no religion, or most precisely the religion of not believing in a God.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let's get back to your first point. If there is a fair UMP who cannot be influenced by actions and beliefs which are extraneous to the matter at hand, like your praying to it instead of with your own efforts and wits walking from the middle to the curb of a busy highway, what is that UMP doing for you and to you while it is not ignoring you?