Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[siti]

I'd say you're an atheist.

One of us!
One of us!
Gooble gobble gooble gobble!
One of us!

Freaks, freaks, freaks...make me one of you will you?

 

[Koldo]

Again you're just restating the same idea - if it doesn't correspond to your definition of a 'god' then it's not a 'god'.

It works like that with every single word... and probably with everyone.
If I were to buy something from you, and I happened to call what is referred by most people as 'grass' by the label 'dollar', would you accept my 'dollars'? Or would you say something akin to: "Dude, you are free to call that grass whatever you wish but I don't count that as dollars, so I won't accept it as if it were dollars"?

I'm not thinking in terms of anything, its not my belief I was referring to...my point was that there is a physical reality behind the believer's idea of the 'god'.

And my point is that even if there is a physical reality behind the believer's idea of god, it is not this physical reality that is being deified per se, but rather the purported supernatural abilities.

No its not...and in any case, I was not referring to 'religion' but to 'belief in god' - and your comments are merely proving the OP's argument:

You didn't answer my question:"Why wouldn't religion specifically be passed down through generations when so many other things are?"

As for the OP, I have already replied to it... and further clarified my words.

Oh I see - you mean the old "goddunnit" god of the gaps thing - not a proper explanation of how something was done supernaturally - well that's an even weaker argument - there will always be things that lack a satisfactory natural explanation - and there will always be things that we used to resort to supernaturalism to answer that we now know is perfectly natural - none of that is evidence either for or against either theism or atheism...it just means we don't (at least yet) know how it happened.

If there are no events that necessitate a supernatural explanation, then it makes no sense to propose the existence of the supernatural.

 

[siti]

It works like that with every single word... and probably with everyone.

Spinoza, for one (of very, very many) disagreed (almost four centuries in advance) with your definition of 'god' as essentially supernatural...

If I were to buy something from you, and I happened to call what is referred by most people as 'grass' by the label 'dollar', would you accept my 'dollars'? Or would you say something akin to: "Dude, you are free to call that grass whatever you wish but I don't count that as dollars, so I won't accept it as if it were dollars"?

Dude, is that before or after smoking it?

And my point is that even if there is a physical reality behind the believer's idea of god, it is not this physical reality that is being deified per se, but rather the purported supernatural abilities.

Again its beside the point, what I am saying is that the idea and the physical substrate on which the idea of deity is based, or from which the the idea of deity emerges exists squarely within the physical realm...so if we want to know about the origins of deity that's where we need to look - and moreover, it might turn out to be worth looking.

You didn't answer my question: "Why wouldn't religion specifically be passed down through generations when so many other things are?"

Religion clearly is passed down through generations but you can't deduce that from "so many other things"...

Faulty reasoning aside, I repeat, my original comment was not about religion but about belief in god/gods...why does that persist? We could easily develop a religion with rituals, commandments, singing and all the other socio-cultural attributes that religion provides but not necessarily 'god'...indeed that has been done. So why, if we can get everything else religion gives us without the need for a 'god', does 'god' persist?

If there are no events that necessitate a supernatural explanation, then it makes no sense to propose the existence of the supernatural.

I haven't proposed the existence of the supernatural, the supernatural is not what I am talking about, it is what you are talking about...

...in the context of this discussion you have proposed the non-existence of the supernatural as an argument against the existence of the non-supernatural deity I was proposing...that's what makes no sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Freaks, freaks, freaks...make me one of you will you?

You even look a bit like me.

 

[siti]

You even look a bit like me.

Well the hairy knees maybe...but I don't wear a kilt.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well the hairy knees maybe...but I don't wear a kilt.

Just be sure to wear something.
This is a family friendly forum.

 

[Koldo]

Spinoza, for one (of very, very many) disagreed (almost four centuries in advance) with your definition of 'god' as essentially supernatural...

One of the very very few. How many people do you personally know that internalized Spinoza's God? I have never personally met anyone.

Dude, is that before or after smoking it?

Please don't smoke my dollars.

Again its beside the point, what I am saying is that the idea and the physical substrate on which the idea of deity is based, or from which the the idea of deity emerges exists squarely within the physical realm...so if we want to know about the origins of deity that's where we need to look - and moreover, it might turn out to be worth looking.

It is impossible to determine what (mis)interpretation of physical events lead to each single god belief. It is also of little relevance since each believer will affirm their beliefs based on a different set of physical events.

Religion clearly is passed down through generations but you can't deduce that from "so many other things"...

Faulty reasoning aside, I repeat, my original comment was not about religion but about belief in god/gods...why does that persist? We could easily develop a religion with rituals, commandments, singing and all the other socio-cultural attributes that religion provides but not necessarily 'god'...indeed that has been done. So why, if we can get everything else religion gives us without the need for a 'god', does 'god' persist?

Since religion is cultural, and all cultural aspects pass down through generations, why wouldn't religion (and the God belief central to it)? What's so special about god beliefs that you would expect them to behave differently from other cultural aspects?

I haven't proposed the existence of the supernatural, the supernatural is not what I am talking about, it is what you are talking about...

...in the context of this discussion you have proposed the non-existence of the supernatural as an argument against the existence of the non-supernatural deity I was proposing...that's what makes no sense.

I have never agreed that something non-supernatural can be properly called a deity though. If anything, I have been plainly stating the opposite. My dismissal of gods is the dismissal of the supernatural.

 

[siti]

One of the very very few. How many people do you personally know that internalized Spinoza's God? I have never personally met anyone.

You really should get out more. Anyway, I don't personally seek out acquaintances based on religious beliefs, but if you want to get an idea of how widespread the idea of naturalistic pantheism is and has been throughout history look it up - I'm sure there must be lists of famous pantheists and at least a fair few of them were, like Spinoza, of the naturalistic variety...

[EDIT] I found a reference in the Pantheism DIR to census data from a handful (7) of countries that asked sufficiently specific census questions that showed that a total of 7700 people in countries with a total population of about 125 million identified as pantheist - that's a miniscule percentage of the populations but if it were similar everywhere it would still add up to perhaps half a million worldwide by my reckoning.

Oh...and there are of course some pantheists right here on RF - I'm not going to 'out' them, but if you look around you'll find them. [End of EDIT]

The there is also the notion of religious naturalism...which may include pantheism but really only means having a religious reverence for nature...there are lots of religious naturalists or people who have written positively about it - some names that spring to mind are Ursula Goodenough, Stuart Kauffman, Chet Raymo...they don't all agree that we should call what they revere "god" - but their ideas are the kind of thing I'm talking about. As Stuart Kauffman put it in an interview "I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it's God enough for me, and I think it's God enough for many of us if we think about it."

Its that idea, that way of thinking, that I am proposing - to let nature, the creative impulse of the evolutionary nature of reality, take the place of 'god' and our awe and reverence for that, take the place of 'worship' - and then why not use the word 'god' for it? Wouldn't that be a more beneficial cultural heritage to pass on to future generations than either the credulous shackles of hereditary theistic opinion or the deterministic yet meaningless no god required bleakness of mere atheism?

OK - I'm getting dangerously close to proselytizing language here...that wasn't my intention - but the ideas of naturalistic pantheism and religious naturalism are surely more widely held than you give them credit for.

And [Final edit] my intention for raising these matters was not to enter into a discussion of pantheism but to show that there ARE genuine god-concepts that do not invoke supernaturalism and are not (necessarily) associated with religion - my intention was to open up the discussion of the OP's contention that "atheists" are incapable of separating god from religion...

...I am beginning to think I might be the odd man out - an atheist that doesn't feel the need to denigrate religion in the attempt to deny god's existence. [Definitely the end]

 

[Heyo]

There is no standard definition of the word God

Therefore there is no God

That falls into the category of "not even wrong" IMO.

Do you know what falls into the category of "not even wrong"?
Propositions that can't be falsified.

E.g.: "We don't know what it is, and we don't know what it does, but we know it's there."
That is "not even wrong".

And if you were referring to me, then it is also a straw man as I didn't say "Therefore there is no God". I said: "Therefore, it is illogical to propose a god."

 

[Heyo]

Philosophically, god is a necessary existential mystery.

Explaining one undefined thing with another.
I understand "necessary" and I think I understand "existential" but what exactly is a "mystery"? (And how can a mystery be falsified?)

 

[Heyo]

Theism a proposition. And what it proposes is a simple reality construct, not a religion. Some of the people that accept the reality construct then turn it into a religion, so they can adhere to the construct as they choose to envision it.

The problem for most of the atheist here is that they have no understanding whatever of the logical philosophical framework that supports the proposal. They are not aware of the construct, only of the result. So all they can disagree with are the many individual religious manifestations they've ancountered from people that happen to agree with the philosophical construct. But that never addresses the construct itself. So although they call it atheism, it's really just a-religiosity.

That may have to do with the fact that almost all propositions of gods stem from people of a certain religion.
Can you name some famous Theists, who are not only Deists, and also not religious, and their arguments?

 

[Madsaac]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

The truth of the matter is though, that invariably god and religion do go together.

However, if you have a personal relationship with 'god' that makes you a better person with out all of the other crap, then that's great.

But personally, I can't believe in god because there is no reason to believe in god.

 

[PureX]

Oh I see - you mean the old "goddunnit" god of the gaps thing - not a proper explanation of how something was done supernaturally - well that's an even weaker argument - there will always be things that lack a satisfactory natural explanation - and there will always be things that we used to resort to supernaturalism to answer that we now know is perfectly natural - none of that is evidence either for or against either theism or atheism...it just means we don't (at least yet) know how it happened.

The "gap" (existential mystery source) exists. And it is "supernatural" by definition as it exists apart from (is responsible for) the "natural" universe. It is not logical that the universe generated itself out of nothing. Nor is it logical that a universe of constant change is an expression of perpetuity. Leaving only some external creative source as the only logical option.

 

[PureX]

That may have to do with the fact that almost all propositions of gods stem from people of a certain religion.

Certainly. But that then makes it a religious debate, not a philosophical one.

Can you name some famous Theists, who are not only Deists, and also not religious, and their arguments?

I'm not here to debate religious beliefs. I simply don't care who believes what or why.

 

[PureX]

The truth of the matter is though, that invariably god and religion do go together.

Well, no, not invariably. Hence, Taoism and Buddhism, as examples. And the terms aren't defined by their believers, the believers are defined by content of the terms they choose to believe in. And theism as a term refers to a philosophical proposition. While atheism refers to the philosophical counter assertion to that proposition. Religions happen later.

However, if you have a personal relationship with 'god' that makes you a better person with out all of the other crap, then that's great.

But personally, I can't believe in god because there is no reason to believe in god.

No one but you cares what you don't believe about God. Why would they?

 

[PureX]

Explaining one undefined thing with another.
I understand "necessary" and I think I understand "existential" but what exactly is a "mystery"? (And how can a mystery be falsified?)

You don't get to own (comprehend) everything that exists or occurs with your mind. And when that happens, it's called a mystery. Why are you trying so hard not to accept this? Why would you think it shouldn't ever happen when it happens to us all the time?

Is there other intelligent life in the universe? We don't know. It's a mystery. What is the supernatural source that philosophy calls 'God' that generates the natural universe? We don't know. It's a mystery.

Falsification has nothing to do with it until we think we have unraveled the mystery. But we haven't.

 

[Heyo]

You don't get to own (comprehend) everything that exists or occurs with your mind. And when that happens, it's called a mystery. Why are you trying so hard not to accept this?

Because I don't understand it.

Why would you think it shouldn't ever happen when it happens to us all the time?

Is there other intelligent life in the universe? We don't know. It's a mystery. What is the supernatural source that philosophy calls 'God' that generates the natural universe? We don't know. It's a mystery.

Falsification has nothing to do with it until we think we have unraveled the mystery. But we haven't.

So god is not an entity, it is a question. I propose a new spelling: ¿god?.

 

[Koldo]

You really should get out more. Anyway, I don't personally seek out acquaintances based on religious beliefs, but if you want to get an idea of how widespread the idea of naturalistic pantheism is and has been throughout history look it up - I'm sure there must be lists of famous pantheists and at least a fair few of them were, like Spinoza, of the naturalistic variety...

[EDIT] I found a reference in the Pantheism DIR to census data from a handful (7) of countries that asked sufficiently specific census questions that showed that a total of 7700 people in countries with a total population of about 125 million identified as pantheist - that's a miniscule percentage of the populations but if it were similar everywhere it would still add up to perhaps half a million worldwide by my reckoning.

Oh...and there are of course some pantheists right here on RF - I'm not going to 'out' them, but if you look around you'll find them. [End of EDIT]

I couldn't help but notice you not mentioning personally knowing anyone that believes in Spinoza's God. Pantheism has never gained traction.

It also wouldn't surprise me if very many of those that self-identified as pantheists were actually panentheists.

The there is also the notion of religious naturalism...which may include pantheism but really only means having a religious reverence for nature...there are lots of religious naturalists or people who have written positively about it - some names that spring to mind are Ursula Goodenough, Stuart Kauffman, Chet Raymo...they don't all agree that we should call what they revere "god" - but their ideas are the kind of thing I'm talking about. As Stuart Kauffman put it in an interview "I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it's God enough for me, and I think it's God enough for many of us if we think about it."

Its that idea, that way of thinking, that I am proposing - to let nature, the creative impulse of the evolutionary nature of reality, take the place of 'god' and our awe and reverence for that, take the place of 'worship' - and then why not use the word 'god' for it? Wouldn't that be a more beneficial cultural heritage to pass on to future generations than either the credulous shackles of hereditary theistic opinion or the deterministic yet meaningless no god required bleakness of mere atheism?

Why would we have to be stuck into this trichotomy? Why would we have to choose between credulity, bleakness and worship of nature?

God is "dead" and you want to replace it with something else when we do have the alternative of living a prosperous life with nothing replacing it. We CAN move on. We don't need to find ourselves eternally shackled by the same underlying mentality.

OK - I'm getting dangerously close to proselytizing language here...that wasn't my intention - but the ideas of naturalistic pantheism and religious naturalism are surely more widely held than you give them credit for.

Not at all. It is a social phenomenon of little relevancy.

And [Final edit] my intention for raising these matters was not to enter into a discussion of pantheism but to show that there ARE genuine god-concepts that do not invoke supernaturalism and are not (necessarily) associated with religion - my intention was to open up the discussion of the OP's contention that "atheists" are incapable of separating god from religion...

For all sakes and purposes, I align myself with Dawkins in saying that pantheism is sexed up atheism. Therefore, I don't consider pantheism to offer a genuine god-concept. Pantheism is what happens when people can't accept God's death.

...I am beginning to think I might be the odd man out - an atheist that doesn't feel the need to denigrate religion in the attempt to deny god's existence. [Definitely the end]

I also don't feel the need to denigrate religion to deny God's existence. No idea on what you are talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can explain why they think they are elephants. But that still doesn’t make them elephants. Atheism is not a person. Nor is it an identity. It’s a philosophical assertion in relation to the theists proposition. So someone claiming to be an atheist and then denying the philosophical assertion is being illogical and/or dishonest.

You know what's dishonest? Pretending words mean only one thing when they can mean multiple things:

You know how dictionary definitions work, right?
When you have 2 points like in the above, then they don't both apply at the same time.
It means that it can mean one thing OR the other thing.

So when you talk to an atheist and that atheist tells you that his atheism is of the first kind, then you insisting it must be of the second kind... is what is dishonest.

This is why people (rightfully) accuse you of arguing strawmen.

You seem to be having great difficulty grasping that I don’t care what anyone believes, because it has nothing to do with defining theism or atheism as philosophical positions.

Yes, you've made it very clear already that you don't care what people's positions actually are. You only care about imposing on them what you feel like their positions should be.

Again: this is exactly what strawmanning someone's position is.

Read the above dictionary definition again. Most people here identify as an atheist in the sense of point 1. You insist that they must identify as an atheist in the sense of point 2. And you then critisize them / argue against them on that basis. This is nothing more or less then a dishonest strawman.

We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep doubling down on your dishonest ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The "gap" (existential mystery source) exists. And it is "supernatural" by definition as it exists apart from (is responsible for) the "natural" universe. It is not logical that the universe generated itself out of nothing.

1. I'ld expect that whatever the origins of the universe turn out to be, it will be something so counter intuitive to us that we would call it illogical.

2. I smell a false dichotomy

Nor is it logical that a universe of constant change is an expression of perpetuity. Leaving only some external creative source as the only logical option.

Let's assume it is indeed an external source that produce the universe: why would such an external source have to be some personal god that creates the universe with intention, purpose and planning?