How many different versions of God are there?

[Magical Realist]

How many versions of Morality are there? Do the many versions of Morality lessen its importance?

It certainly lessens the importance of the belief that there is only one absolute morality everyone subscribes to.

 

[wynn]

Because to assert the objective reality of something is to also assert a consensual unanimous experience of that thing.

No. Look, you've asserted a truism. Truisms don't prove anything.

There will be certain common traits and properties of the thing that people will agree on. Without this, the reality of that thing will always remain in question.

That goes only for things whose very existence depends on consensus. Such as words.

Without this, the reality of that thing will always remain in question.

Only in the minds of people who are epistemologically entirely dependent on consensus (or at least pretend to be).


* * * *

So, you're implying that god is not important... Hard to disagree.

No, that is just your inference.

My question was not rhetorical, as evidenced by the request - "But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?"

There's no problem. Besides the fact that we are never reaching any kind of consensus on that. And any kind of discussion about such, would become an overwhelming swirlpool of different ideas that leads to what it leads, even now.

Why would we need to reach a consesus on it? Can you explain?

 

[wynn]

Theists believe that the word 'God' does have a literally existing objective referent. That's basically what makes them theists. Whether or not that's the case, whether something objectively exists out there somewhere in reality that the word 'God' refers to, is probably the most important question in the more theistic varieties of philosophy of religion.

And a question that only an atheist would ask, so the inquiry is biased from the onset.

I'm not convinced that any universal consensus exists. No matter what's said about God, some theist somewhere will doubtless disagree with it. Academic writers have produced many different definitions over the years of what the writers think the essential meaning of 'God' is, and it's telling how different they sometimes are.

Again -
"But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?"

I don't believe that there is. I don't want to close the door on it 100% though. It's possible (a small possibility perhaps, but not quite zero) that God does literally exist as something more than a word and the vaguely defined cloud of ideas associated with it. It's possible that God will someday decide to come out of hiding and prove me wrong. But as things stand today, I think that I'm reasonable in proceeding on the assumption that God doesn't exist.

Do define the underlined term.

Surely if you assume that "God doesn't exist," then you must mean something by the term "God."

 

[Dazz]

No, that is just your inference.

May be, but it is somewhat evident in your words.

My question was not rhetorical, as evidenced by the request - "But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?"




Why would we need to reach a consesus on it? Can you explain?

Aren't we always trying to do so?

 

[Magical Realist]

That goes only for things whose very existence depends on consensus. Such as words.

Actually no. It goes for anything that has a known objective existence. Things that already exist and so don't depend on consensus to exist all. Take the Eiffel Tower for instance. There is a universal consensus on what this object is and what its properties are. Does this mean the existence of the Eiffel Tower DEPENDS on this universal consensus? No. The consensus is an effect of it's objective existence, not its cause. What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.

 

[Syne]

Yes, it is rather silly for an atheist to spend such an inordinate amount of time talking about God, especially when they say the concept is incoherent. It would make much more sense for many atheists to define themselves as anti-religious and spend their time talking about the religious, which do have objective traits.

Talking about a delusion that holds the vast majority of people on earth in its grip is silly? No..not when there are so many ill effects from believing in this delusion.

[links snipped]

I will not subject myself to what I would consider atheist preaching (requiring people to view videos, 30 mins in total, to discern if you have any point at all). No doubt these are only propaganda pieces which use non-typical or unrelated instances to make hasty generalizations about all religious people.

You have not established anything as delusion, you have only proclaimed it as a bare assertion.

 

[Syne]

What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".

 

[Hapsburg]

In my view, reality is subjective. Human minds encounter and perceive the divine in different ways, because we each have different experiences and perceptions. Each has their own frame of reference. So, even if the gods are some objective station or anchor-point, our way to conceptualise them and explain them is something that will vary from person to person. Groups might agglomerate around certain ways of explaining it, but their experiences are all going to be different.

 

[Magical Realist]

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".

There's no universal consensus on what a homosexual is? That's a weird assertion..

 

[wynn]

May be, but it is somewhat evident in your words.

Only if you infer I meant them rhetorically.

Aren't we always trying to do so?

Not at all. Can you elaborate on the need for consensus? I've asked this question before, but nobody took it up.

 

[wynn]

Actually no. It goes for anything that has a known objective existence. Things that already exist and so don't depend on consensus to exist all. Take the Eiffel Tower for instance. There is a universal consensus on what this object is and what its properties are. Does this mean the existence of the Eiffel Tower DEPENDS on this universal consensus? No. The consensus is an effect of it's objective existence, not its cause. What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.

How did you calculate that such is "very likely"?

 

[Magical Realist]

How did you calculate that such is "very likely"?

Just the way it is. Do you have some argument against it?

 

[lightgigantic]

There's no universal consensus on what a homosexual is? That's a weird assertion..

There is very quickly developing a universal consensus about your comprehension skills when it comes to ignoring elements of discussion that inconvenience your POV.

Try reading his response again and see if you can pick up a key word in the quotation marks that you left out.

"it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist"

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Just the way it is. Do you have some argument against it?

If you can't explain how you come to use the word "likely", then no, there is no need to.

Critiques for arguments that don't exist are not required.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Just the way it is.

Because you said so?

That's some magical realism indeed!

 

[Magical Realist]

There is very quickly developing a universal consensus about your comprehension skills when it comes to ignoring elements of discussion that inconvenience your POV.

Try reading his response again and see if you can pick up a key word in the quotation marks that you left out.

"it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist"

IOW, homosexuals, which are ALL born that way, don't exist. Sounds delusional to me.

:shrug:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation; however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

 

[Magical Realist]

Because you said so?

That's some magical realism indeed!

No..because you have no counterargument to it.

 

[lightgigantic]

No..because you have no counterargument to it.

very difficult to provide a counterargument to something that doesn't exist.


:shrug:

 

[Syne]

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".

There's no universal consensus on what a homosexual is? That's a weird assertion..

There is very quickly developing a universal consensus about your comprehension skills when it comes to ignoring elements of discussion that inconvenience your POV.

Try reading his response again and see if you can pick up a key word in the quotation marks that you left out.

"it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist"

LG could parse the meaning of my post just fine. So either you were being intentionally obtuse or his assessment is correct.

 

[Syne]

IOW, homosexuals, which are ALL born that way, don't exist. Sounds delusional to me.

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation; however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Thank you for so readily providing support for exactly what I said:

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".​

And if that is delusional, remember, it was your own reasoning:

What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.

:roflmao:

I never said such reasoning was sound. I only made an example of your reasoning that you are now saying "sounds delusional". I would agree.