You must be among the chosen ones, then.
Doesn't stop theists from demanding people that they instantly and completely surrender, and it doesn't stop them from getting angry with the people if they don't.
Why do we need a God?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
You must be among the chosen ones, then.
Doesn't stop theists from demanding people that they instantly and completely surrender, and it doesn't stop them from getting angry with the people if they don't.
must be quite a broad demograph then since what you describe is not even in my experience of other people's experience over several continents
guess there is not a lot stopping a kannistha then
Obviously, I am not among those chosen ones, and this is what is most relevant to me.
I am sure many will place the whole blame on me.
But frankly, short of a lobotomy, I see no way of getting along with theists.
- And it hurts to realize this. Surely if God exists and we are all His parts and parcels, why would annulling oneself be required to come close to Him or to get along with those who, presumably, know Him?
Last edited:
No, don't bother.
Your inability to grasp simple logic of an argument, and when you are applying that argument fallaciously (even if the argument itself is logical), plus your inability to quote accurately, plus your clear twisting of facts in relation to this thread makes further debate on this matter a waste of my time.
p4 if possible (in my view) because of the subjective nature of problems.
I.e. they only exist as a perception... some admittedly widely felt among those capable of subjective judgements.
So while humans are part of material existence, we are conscious and can interpret situations as problems that require solutions. Material existence is not, in and of itself, capable of such... as evidenced through the lack of ability in a rock.
So it is down to the combination of parts of that material existence that give rise to the judgement of situations as "problems".
1. Why "Western" empiricism? Is empiricism different in the East?
I don't hail it as certainly the one and only valid approach... but it is the one I use, and I would admittedly currently struggle to accept anything as knowledge that does not stem from there.
2. If someone can provide a notion of God that is different but does not require belief (as I don't have belief) in order to understand it... ?
I do so out of pragmaticism, lest one gets lost looking for what does not exist. Many enjoy the search, though, and it can be helped if one has an idea what one is looking for.
To live as though God doesn't exist is a choice. My brother does the alternative, and gets great pleasure and reward from it. But I can't choose to believe, or act as though I do. God would surely know I don't believe.
Only if evidence of God is not available via the means through which one identifies it. And this we also don't know.
But the same argument can be used for every other thing we don't know about, even whether it exists or not.
Why should God be accorded any different status to these infinite other things? Oh, yes, because of the potential rewards... that someone has written about in a book.
Do you feel you need to know God before you can believe in it? Or do you already believe and are now trying to get to know, and are unsure of the best means?
Many would classify strong atheism as a rejection of deism as well. But given the lack of consensus even as to what constitutes even the basic label of atheist...
I'll try to bear in mind that you include Deism as a strong-atheist position, if that is correct?
Aye. But then I'd think it comes down to pragmaticism, and whether one can marry their core philosophies with an active and honest effort to address that behaviour.
I'm fairly sure I can't.
True.
Why? God wants us to assume things are true before we can really know if they are true? God desires stupidity?
Quoting things out of context does not get you brownie points.
[Since belief is measured by action, he who forbids us to believe religion to be true, necessarily also forbids us to act as we should if we did believe it to be true. The whole defence of religious faith hinges upon action. If the action required or inspired by the religious hypothesis is in no way different from that dictated by the naturalistic hypothesis, then religious faith is a pure superfluity, better pruned away, and controversy about its legitimacy is a piece of idle trifling, unworthy of serious minds. I myself believe, of course, that the religious hypothesis gives to the world an expression which specifically determines our reactions, and makes them in a large part unlike what they might be on a purely naturalistic scheme of belief.]
Some people sure insist in stupidity.
But it is true, religious people are not morally superior. Name a moral statement or action from a religious person that could not be produced without religion.
Gratitude for everything that we have.
It is a simple act of basic decency to acknowledge one's indebtedness.
In a more general way, appreciation for the wonder of this world is something I hear all the time from atheists and secular scientists, haven't you seen anything by Carl Sagan? But since there is probably no God, feeling indebted to a non-existent entity is an empty gesture and thus not moral or immoral.
Have you ever experienced that breathable air is scarce?
For whom would I be grateful for oxygen? I would thank mosses and lichens, but they probably wouldn't appreciate it.
Not merely rewards - it is the definitions of God that are to be considered.
And if we consider the usual definitions of God - there are no problems, at least not as far as existence of God is concerned.
Thanks for asking. Actually, for general uses, terms like "knowledge of God" or "belief in God" are good enough, but if we consider them in conjunction with the usual definitions of God, those terms are introducing ontological, epistemological and ethical implications that are in discord with the usual definitions of God.
Namely, the usual definitions of God: the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe; the Supreme; the Source/Origin of All, the Summum Bonum, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, the All-Attractive.
Given these definitions, how could a human "know God"? How could a human discern the entity who is the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe; the Supreme; the Source/Origin of All, the Summum Bonum, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, the All-Attractive? A human couldn't.
One would have to be the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe; the Supreme; the Source/Origin of All, the Summum Bonum, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, the All-Attractive, in order to know the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe; the Supreme; the Source/Origin of All, the Summum Bonum, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, the All-Attractive.
And as for "belief in God" - what exactly would that refer to? A hope and a trust that God would keep the promises given in scriptures? That would be like doubting the usual definitions of God.
Again, if we consider the usual definitions of God, there is no problem with His existence or us knowing of His existence.
The only task is to figure out our own role in all this, given the usual definitions of God.
Now you can say that a definition doesn't make reality. But if you want to look for something, you have to first know what it is that you are looking for - you have to have some definition of it.
If you set your hopes on first finding something, and only then try to define it (by examining and testing it) - you surely won't be able to find God as defined in the usual definitions. That kind of quest for God is doomed to failure from the onset.
It is correct, under the proviso that an explanation be added why the two are effectively the same.
I've always believed, and above, I am also quoting James for the same point, that unless one actually lives one's philosophy, on a daily basis, that philosophy is of no use and should better be done away with.
Last edited:
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
huh, as much as the trees/plants are indebted to us I suppose?
Indebtedness is a form of primate reciprocity, entirely misplaced when applied to inanimate objects.
There are no debts in nature. A lion does owe a cheetah anything for its cubs that it killed and ate. We aren't very grateful towards other species, are we now? The way be treat our food-source animals itself shows that such social conditions such as debt dont exist in nature between species. A good indicator that morality is altruistic, not divine.
Besides we give them the CO2 that they need, so we are even anyway.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
@aaqucnaona
Of course there are no debts in nature but we're talking about being indebted to God not nature and being indebted to God completely depends on God's will and what God obligates us for and what God obligates us for of course supercedes morality, morality is just part of what God obligates us for.