Creating the Creator..

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by ULTRA, Feb 7, 2011.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    no
    read it again

    terms remain valid within the context of an ideology

    for instance, "x" means something in algebra, means something else on pirate treasure maps and repeated three times means something else entirely in the porno industry.

    If we want to understand what x means, it worth paying attention to the context that frames it

    its more when they use the terms out of context when offering a critique

    calm down and take a pill

    I am just talking about theoretical understanding, which is kind of a precursor to any sort of philosophical discussion (regardless whether it is for or against)
    I'm saying the critique is wrong.
    usually I criticize gross materialism in that it results in nothing more than a mouth full of rotting molars.

    Since they also don't deny the temporary nature of their perceived world view, their disagreement with me is of a different nature

    If an analogy could work out of drawing on something unknown to make a parallel, I don't think it would really work. Do you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    There is evidence that can be interpreted to suggest that stone-age people had some kind of religiosity. Cave paintings and 'venus' figurines suggest that. In fact human religiosity may actually predate the appearance of anatomically modern humans. There's evidence that Neanderthals may have practiced ritual burials and even Homo erectus seems to have collected human skulls on occasion. (It's hard to know what the motivation was for that.)

    Paleolithic people apparently had religious-style ideas about human fertility, about death (and perhaps an afterlife), and probably practiced some kind of hunting magic. There may have been a very early idea that some kind of power resided in human heads (or maybe people just wanted to look bad-ass). Old stone age people may very well have believed in spirit beings, and may have given them names and told traditional stories about them. I expect that they probably did. But we don't know that for a fact.

    But all of that doesn't necessarily imply that these people believed in something we might call "a creator". We can't be certain how they explained the origin of everything around them, or whether the need for a universal explanation even occurred to them. We certainly don't know any of the details, such as whether they attributed it all to one single personal being.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    And yet when you can't explain your ideology without the person needing to believe in your ideology... where then are you left?

    Unfortunately your "context" appears to be the a priori assumption of god's existence... which hardly makes a compelling argument to use the terms in your context.
    It therefore boils down to your "context" needing the person to believe in god. "Believe to believe".

    They may have a theoretical understanding but do not accept the theory. You then revert to their failure to put the theoretical into practice... and then use "lack of context".
    ... because it doesn't allow for a god... and that is unacceptable to you. :shrug:
    And this is unacceptable to you because you believe in something else. It is not, however, evidence for what you believe, and you therefore seem to be arguing from consequences and personal incredulity. :shrug:

    Yep - lack of evidence for your view.
    Currently isn't working as it is... so maybe you should consider a different tack entirely?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    True, the church is just a building—and also a very good place to doze off.

    Aren't nuns the brides of Christ? (No, for he wasn't Morman and could only have one, or nun.)

    We created God, so that makes us GOD.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    At this stage the only belief required is enough to entertain the contexts for the terms.

    For instance if you run the risk of going off on a tangent about pirates treasure during algebra because on a radical absence of disbelief about what "x" signifies, then yes, you would have problems .....
    lol
    In case you haven't noticed, the list of things that can be discussed or analyzed theoretically without a priori assumptions is quite small .....
    If you are not speaking in a context, nobody knows whether you are talking about algebra, pirates treasure, or porn when you speak of "X"

    Regardless of what they do or don't accept, they are obedient to context
    thats only the case when they question the issue of proof (since the question of proof is always tied to the question of application)

    Its my experience that often the case here is an atheist doesn't know whether they are offering an argument of logic ("God doesn't make sense") and when they are making an argument of proof ("God doesn't exist").

    PS - sometimes they try to cover both bases with "God doesn't exist because he doesn't make sense", but that's really just an argument of logic
    no
    I am saying that the critique is wrong because it uses terms outside of their context ... much like the problems plagued by looking for pirates treasure in am algebra text book

    are you paying attention?

    I wasn't talking about evidence of what I believe.

    I was talking about my ability to work within the context of others ideology.

    In this instance I was talking about how gross materialism as a world view doesn't culminate in anything more than a mouth full of rotting molars.

    Given that atheistic gross materialists also view existence as temporary, its not a critique that violates the context of terms (unlike the critique : "god is cruel because we can't have an enjoyable life with a mouth full of rotting molars)

    ... which happens to be an argument around problems of application (which will always be difficult for those tied up in knots at the point of theory)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    er .... Criticizing an analogy for calling upon something you already know in order to make a parallel (to something you don't) doesn't even come close to a strong argument .....
     
  9. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Yes, the 'god' concept is thoroughly illogical and indeed incoherent. I am unsure of the value of "but it's just an argument from logic!" Kindly fill me in.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I would love to but unfortunately I have never heard a sound argument for god being illogical so really don't know how to begin
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    On principle, the church is one of the conducive elements between an individual and God.


    This is a specific Christian idea.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I do not see how this analogy applies to theism -??
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Perhaps in a Universe where God is really really interested in individual living beings, and where theists really really care about those they talk to ...
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Just to be clear: could you provide some examples of such instances of conflict?


    I disagree.
    What those texts say can only be applied after one has done what the links provided earlier classify as "cultist", "mind control".


    Could you give some examples of where "They are in maya/karmis/not advanced enough" is a valid justification for conflict?
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually philosophy doesn't depend on those things, even if you are assessing that someone is indifferent to you or whatever
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    How appreciative/indifferent the people are to eachother tends to be the deciding factor in how much conversation they will have to begin with (whether this conversation is philosophical or not) ...
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    politics is about getting someone to do what you want
    religion is about doing what god wants


    well if you are going to suggest that any working definition for a devotee requires an authority outside of the body of work then its a moot argument ... I mean its not like its unacceptable for minority groups to insist on being defined on their own terms, is it?




    when making an assessment of benefit - for instance ignoring the nature of consciousness, one could say its beneficial to have an abortion
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    making that assessment is using from philosophy from the onset
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    So basically, if we assume god exists, and use the terms such as consciousness in the way you require us to (that are dependent/contingent upon the existence of god) then we can conclude that god exists.
    Woohoo. Thanks.
    Now - assume that god does not exist and start from there.

    So you require people to work in the context of an existing god in order to discuss matters of whether god exists... again I'll go with "Woohoo".
    Your arguments of such matters beg the question due to the "context" you require others to work in.

    Sure - but you do not work within the context that this ideology comes from a lack of evidence of an alternative. So you reject the worldview, just as those who understand and work within your ideology reject it based on lack of evidence, and as a result do not use the terms as you do that require an a priori assumption of the tenets of that ideology.

    But you don't view existence as temporary... you believe in reincarnation and the eternal life of the soul do you not?
    Again, seems like evidence of your hypocritical inability to work within the context (despite your claims to the contrary) of others' ideology. :shrug:

    You're getting close to understanding the point... well done. Give it a bit more thought and you may be there.
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Yes, this is so in logic and theory.

    But in practice, it is theists who tell people (both in general as well as specific situations) what it is that God wants them to do.
    In effect, disagreeing with a theist is counted as disagreeing with God Himself.

    "Do as I tell you, or you will burn in hell!"
    "Chant like this, or you are chanting wrongly."
    Etc.

    In practice, it is one person against the other. Except that one uses the supreme religious philosophy as a leverage against the other.

    So religion is, in effect, about what theists want people to do.


    I do not know what God wants, and see no way to find out.


    My point is that there seems to be no channel or way to smoothly, gradually go from non-member to member, from non-devotee to devotee.
    An immense leap of faith is required, an instant acceptance of all tenets - or nothing. Even the smallest instance of application requires that one (implicitly) accept the whole system.
    I do not think this is fair.


    How about
    "I wish to take this gradually, without blind faith."
    -?
    Does this count for conflict and for "You're in maya"?
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Well, I wouldn't think of it like philosophy ...


    And I still have the question from before -

    I do not see how this analogy applies to theism -??
     
  22. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    the church or a church? the church is a group of people who have been born again via the spirit. a church is one of many religious institutions, which depending on the person attending and their motives, and the motives and doctrine of the institution could actually be a hindrance to a relationship with god.




    and yet it works for anyone.
     
  23. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    1. You obviously don't get around much.
    2. It shouldn't prevent or hinder you from explaining to me the manner in which you attempted to dismiss something because it's "just an argument from logic", as if logic is something that has no value. That's all I'm interested in. Don't tell me you're still the same old lightgigantic that never answers straight questions?
    3. Of course, although given that it's you I am somewhat put off wasting my time, we could get into a discussion concerning the illogical, indeed incoherent, claims concerning the 'god' concept but it would first require that you actually explain what 'god' is - something theists never manage to do.
     

Share This Page