The Relevance of the Concept of God
- Thread starter Syne
- Start date
True enough, but most atheists are actually anti-religion in practice.
Are you serious? You're still holding your impossible position? :roflmao:
Can you not see what he claimed?
As long as they call themselves "atheists," we'll go by that qualifier that they ascribe to themselves, and consider its implications.
You seem to think that the OP's reasoning is that there is a practical application of God as an observer even without religion.
Not sure anyone actually argued that here.
Syne?
Although, on the face of it, as long as we have some general concept of God, such as the one in a dictionary (which is derived from actual theistic religions), some practical application of God as an observer is possible even without reference to a particular religion. If in no other way, then as a generalized anxiety over doing wrong.
I see no refute to the ample references I have given. All you seem to have is a simpleton's appeal to ridicule. You know, in lieu of a reasoned and supported argument of any sort.
The OP only specifies the abstract concept of god, which requires no religious trappings at all. If "practical application" means accountability, punishment/reward, etc. then no, this was not suggested by the OP.
The links YOU provided were ample references let alone the ones myself and others provided. You just simply won't admit you're wrong.
The concept of God implies the existence of absolutes. Without such a concept things becomes relative. For example, the framers of the US Constitution defined certain God given rights which exist like laws of science applied to humans. These trump man made or artificial rights, which tend to be designed to promote on only special interests.
From this intuition of absolutes came certain laws of science, which are the same for all, within all references.
The absolutes defined by the concept of God, are more about human nature, will power and choices, as such they define how the operating system of the human brain works, naturally, instead of artificially or man-made.
From this intuition of absolutes came certain laws of science, which are the same for all, within all references.
The absolutes defined by the concept of God, are more about human nature, will power and choices, as such they define how the operating system of the human brain works, naturally, instead of artificially or man-made.
Yes, that appears to be your answer for everyone who shows you when you're wrong. LOL.
You really get off on all this one-liner trolling, huh? May be you should recap why you think I am wrong. You know, quoting specific references you think support your claim. Western cultures do not recognize a being that is no better or more powerful than a human as a god, and Capracus has not argued that they do, other than by continually moving the goalposts (from "concept of god" to "god" to "religion" to "mystical") in a lame attempt to conflate them with any argument I advance. If you think that is intellectual honesty...well, then I know what to expect from you.
Reading this -
The third-person omniscient narrator in literature (fiction and non-fiction). It's the most frequently used narrative mode. By reading literature, we internalize the idea that there exists such a thing as an omniscient perspective. Which can, in turn, be a factor for keeping us in place.
reminded me of your OP request
and I thought of another example:
The third-person omniscient narrator in literature (fiction and non-fiction). It's the most frequently used narrative mode. By reading literature, we internalize the idea that there exists such a thing as an omniscient perspective. Which can, in turn, be a factor for keeping us in place.
You mean, like this one-liner trolling?
I haven't forgotten why you are wrong, have you?
No, I think you are intellectually dishonest for making a claim, being shown that you are wrong and then standing by your original claim.
The ideal observer theory is only meant to be a basis for the notion that all moral stances could be made consistent with a standard derived from a hypothetical omniscient, rational and impartial human observer. The theory has no value in assessing moral value to any real condition, since the resultant standard of such an observer can never be realized. The role of such an observer is not one of an influential overseer as conceived in your concept of god.Syne said:
For your concept of god to have any influence on the development of conscience, your observer, defined characteristically as a god, would need to have a discernible moral disposition. And to conform to your placebo reference, it would also have to be imagined as real.
Last edited: