quote:"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen F. Roberts
I like the quote, although I don't remotely think it's going to change anyone's mind here. The "devil's advocate" in me sees at least one possible response to it. That is the idea that many people don't so much reject other gods as they reject other people's understanding of God. But even that response seems to me to be more of a semantic quibble than a pertinent point.
The salient message in the quote, and what I like about it, comes as a response to theists wondering how it is that anyone could be atheist when evidence of God is all around. To that line of thinking, I think the quote is a rather good rebuttal.
[ February 17, 2006, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Thanks! Now I have one more piece of ammunition against the very vocal preachers who sometimes come to my school and yell at poor girls on their way to class that they should "get back to the kitchen."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I don't see why there can't be multiple gods. Of course, they all couldn't be omnipotent and what not, just possessing large egos and the tendency to exaggerate about their abilities.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, honestly, I'm hoping more to spark a thoughtful discussion than to provide "ammunition". The quote appeals less to me as a "gotcha" quote than it does as a legitimate philosophical point. I'm hoping this discussion can center around that. If it gets snarky (and I'm not saying Juxtapose was) I'll delete the thread or ask PJ to lock it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know what he means by "dismiss." Do I deny the existence of entities that other people call "gods"? Not really. My beliefs allow for the existence of such entities.
If he means why don't I believe in those other gods (not their mere existence, but in them as worthy of worship/reverence/whatever), then the obvious answer is "when you understand why I believe in God as I do, then you will understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods."
So we're no closer to any mutual understanding whatsoever.
[ February 17, 2006, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with Dags on this one.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It is a valid philosophical point; I think it's a very concise and insightful expression of atheism as I see it. If it appeals to me as ammunition against certain types, well, I consider them deserving of both gotcha quotes and snarkiness. I wouldn't try to use it as such against people I actually respect.
quote:That is the idea that many people don't so much reject other gods as they reject other people's understanding of God. But even that response seems to me to be more of a semantic quibble than a pertinent point.
I have to disagree with you here though. Even from an atheistic standpoint, I can understand others' need for "God," and that this need transcends culture or locale. One of the marks of a dignified believer - or non-believer for that matter - will be the recognition that their are multiple avenues to the same end. Live and let live, so to speak.
That said, I think most theists will discard certain religions (and I'm using a broad sense of the term here) out of hand. Most people wouldn't, for example, consider the Greek pantheon for worship. Maybe their stated reasons for not worshiping Zeus, if forced to state them, would be different from mine for not worshipping Yahweh, but I think this quote still applies in that the logic and thought processes used to arrive at the decision would flow along similar veins.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag, I think I understand what you are saying in the first two paragraphs, but the problem with being no closer to a mutual understanding, I think, is in taking the quote as an attempt to convince you that your belief is wrong.
Now, some people might try to use the quote as such, but that's not at all why I like it. I like it not as an attack on someone else's belief, but as a defense of a lack of theistic belief.
In other words, I think I do understand why you believe in God and why you dismiss all other gods. Is it possible that through examining those things yourself, you might understand why I don't?
EDIT: I'm not saying you don't understand. I'm asking philosophically, not trying to imply or accuse anything about the degree to which your opinions are considered ones. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The quote shows a profound misunderstanding. God is not the same sort of thing as gods. Gods are finite, imperfect, can't be a primary cause to anything, can't be a basis for value, and (to get particular) aren't associated with remarkable events happening in Roman-occupied Judaea.
Atman, which is sometimes called God, is another different sort of thing.
A common problem in rhetoric: ambiguous words. It's like someone adopting the label of "socialist" because he likes to socialize.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think I understand what you are saying in the first two paragraphs, but the problem with being no closer to a mutual understanding, I think, is in taking the quote as an attempt to convince you that your belief is wrong.
I didn't mean it that way: if I thought it were an attempt to prove my belief wrong I'd probably dismiss it out of hand.
Where I think we're no closer to mutual understanding is that the reason I reject those other "gods" is because of my belief in my God. Not because I find something unsuitable per se (that is, outside the context of my beliefs in my God) about those "gods" or something unbelievable about the concept of gods in general.
quote:In other words, I think I do understand why you believe in God and why you dismiss all other gods. Is it possible that through examining those things yourself, you might understand why I don't?
In other words, I do understand why I dismiss all those other gods, and those reasons have almost nothing to do with an evaluation of their "likelihood." I know for a fact that the reason I dismiss all but one is not the same reason the atheist dismisses all.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The quote shows a profound misunderstanding. God is not the same sort of thing as gods. Gods are finite, imperfect, can't be a primary cause to anything, can't be a basis for value, and (to get particular) aren't associated with remarkable events happening in Roman-occupied Judaea.
I'm not sure the misunderstanding is on the part of the quote. One man's "gods" are often other men's "God". In other words, what you relegate to "gods" might very well be another believer's "infinite, perfect, primary cause, giver of morality, and associated with remarkable events."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think you're taking too literal a meaning of the term "gods," Will. This quote isn't stipulating the existence, or even belief in the existence of multiple gods. It's using the term to diffrentiate between the different God(s) that people worship. I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca. And that's not even getting into, say, Hinduism.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I know for a fact that the reason I dismiss all but one is not the same reason the atheist dismisses all.
Out of curiosity, why do you think an atheist dismisses all?
Out of tangential curiousity, does this reasoning apply to agnostics too, or just atheists? (I ask because my own definition of which I am depends greatly on very specific definitions of "God").
Also, if you aren't uncomfortable posting it, I'm very interested in more details on this:
quote:Do I deny the existence of entities that other people call "gods"? Not really. My beliefs allow for the existence of such entities.
If you don't want to post it here, you could email me.
[edit for spelling]
[ February 17, 2006, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Where I think we're no closer to mutual understanding is that the reason I reject those other "gods" is because of my belief in my God. Not because I find something unsuitable per se (that is, outside the context of my beliefs in my God) about those "gods" or something unbelievable about the concept of gods in general.
This just begs the question, then, of why you believe in the God that you do, and not others. Logically, I'm lead to believe that at some point, you examined multiple faiths, though probably not all at once, and determined that the religion you follow (Catholicism?) most aptly embodies the beliefs you have.
I'll hold out assuming that until you respond though.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca.
Actually, "allah" is just Arabic for "god." Muslims worship Yahweh.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I understand that, but I still hold to the point I made.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca.
Actually, "allah" is just Arabic for "god." Muslims worship Yahweh.
This also seems to be a semantic quibble. One can argue that God simply is and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, just differently. However, one could equally argue that although they may give their Gods the same name, and believe many of the same things about him, the differences in what they believe about him essentially describe different beings with different natures, only one of which (or none) might be correct. In very simplistic terms, if I believe in Yahweh, but believe He is the creator of the turtle upon which the Earth rests, my Yahweh is a different being from the Yahweh Christians worship.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:One can argue that God simply is and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, just differently
I suppose it's also possible that each of these religions worship a different facet of the same God, an idea which I imagine is kind of like the triune God that many Christians worship today. (another semantic quibble)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, why do you think an atheist dismisses all?
I don't know - hence my statement about lack of mutual understanding.
But I do know that they don't dismiss all for the same reasons I dismiss the others. The reason I dismiss those is because I don't dismiss God. And that doesn't seem as if it could be a possible reason for an atheist to dismiss the others.
quote:Out of tangential curiousity, does this reasoning apply to agnostics too, or just ateists? (I ask because my own definition of which I am depends greatly on very specific definitions of "God").
I think it actually depends on what one means by "dismiss." Is it true to say an agnostic has dismissed all gods? I can see reasons for answering both yes and no, and it's not a philosophical distinction I have a huge stake in.
I'm not trying to say that all atheists have the same reason for dismissing all. I'm simply saying that, by definition, they don't have the same reasons I do.
quote:
quote:Do I deny the existence of entities that other people call "gods"? Not really. My beliefs allow for the existence of such entities.
If you don't want to post it here, you could email me.
I'll go into it briefly, but both Tolkien and Lewis speculate on it better than I.
I believe God is absolutely unique - the definition Dana gave in another thread is a short definition I wholly agree with. All other entities were created by God. In this sense, I agree with Will B's distinction, and it's why I've worded my replies as I have (e.g., "entities that other people call 'gods').
Some of those entities are of a different kind than us. And some of them could be the beings others called "gods."
I'm not venturing any opinion about whether it's the case for any specific instance, but I have no problem believing that some supernatural entity made itself known to humans in some way and became know as "Zeus" or "Odin."
quote:This just begs the question, then, of why you believe in the God that you do, and not others.
It's not really begging the question, because that's not the question implied by the quote at the beginning of the thread. I admit, I haven't (and likely won't be able to) explained why I believe in God as I do. But each instance of dismissal of another candidate was based on that belief.
quote:Logically, I'm lead to believe that at some point, you examined multiple faiths, though probably not all at once, and determined that the religion you follow (Catholicism?) most aptly embodies the beliefs you have.
I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
It is this point that I have considered to be the point of "dismissal" implied in the original quotation.
BTW, I certainly haven't "dismissed" all other potential gods, because I haven't considered them all. But I might be treating "dismiss" in a more positivist sense than others.
To give a legal analogy, I have a prima facie case for Catholicism, specific to me, and every other candidate has the burden of production and persuasion to overcome that case. Those that have produced have not persuaded. These I consider myself to have dismissed. The others I haven't dismissed, because I haven't had to.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I don't think most Muslims would say Allah is the same god as the one Christians call God, and vica verca.
Actually, "allah" is just Arabic for "god." Muslims worship Yahweh.
That is very true, but the key (and obvious) difference among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is Jesus. If you think of God in terms of the Trinity, then no, Muslims and Christians so not worship the same God. As far as I know, Muslims do not acknowledge the Holy Spirit (and the obviously don't regard Jesus as God also).
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
In my eyes, these are the two most important facts about God:
1) God is perfect. He is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omniawesome. He is so far beyond our comprehension and our finite minds that it is impossible for us to make sense of what He does.
2) We are wrong... about something. We're human, so we will definitely be wrong about something. The question we all need to ask ourselves is this: do I believe what I believe about God because it makes the most sense to me, or do I believe what I believe about God because there is something to back it up, whether it makes sense or not?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:One can argue that God simply is and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God, just differently. However, one could equally argue that although they may give their Gods the same name, and believe many of the same things about him, the differences in what they believe about him essentially describe different beings with different natures, only one of which (or none) might be correct.
I don't find the differences substantive enough to grant the second argument equal weight. As Vid notes, the key difference is in the arrival, number, and nature of prophets; I see the differences as being in a large part doctrinal. What I'm getting at is that from the perspective of an outsider examining the three major monotheistic religions, they are equivalent in that key way -- monotheism* -- that starkly differentiates them from the rest of the world's major religions. I studied all three at approximately the same time (though with an emphasis on Christianity) for that reason.
This isn't really related to the point Juxtapose was originally trying to make, and I apologize for the tangent.
*Specifically the worship of Yahweh, of course, who they all basically agree did certain things in a certain part of the world up to a certain point in time beyond which they differ.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:It's not really begging the question, because that's not the question implied by the quote at the beginning of the thread. I admit, I haven't (and likely won't be able to) explained why I believe in God as I do. But each instance of dismissal of another candidate was based on that belief.
I disagree. In my mind, the quesiton of what you believe is wholly inseperable from the question of what you don't believe. Especially, in this case, since you've acknowledged that what you don't believe hinges upon what you do.
I think this is why we're having a hard time with this issue. Not being able to explain why you believe or disbelieve something is a kind of anathema to atheists.
quote:I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
This is where I'm starting to see a weakness in Karl's quote. When it comes to atheism, "why" is very central. Often in dealing with religion, the answer you have to be satisfied with is "because it is so, and has always been so."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:This isn't really related to the point Juxtapose was originally trying to make, and I apologize for the tangent.
Tangents are what make life interesting, my friend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In my mind, the quesiton of what you believe is wholly inseperable from the question of what you don't believe. Especially, in this case, since you've acknowledged that what you don't believe hinges upon what you do.
Weel, yeah, that's kind of my point, isn't it? That understanding why I dismiss the others doesn't help understand why an atheist dismisses all. The suggestion that I have a separate reason distinct from my belief in God for dismissing the others is why I find the original quotation lacking as a means of reaching mutual understanding.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote: if I believe in Yahweh, but believe He is the creator of the turtle upon which the Earth rests, my Yahweh is a different being from the Yahweh Christians worship.
No he isn't. God is the same. It's our beliefs about him that differ. But statistically some people's beliefs would be closer to reality than others'.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Whoa, Yozhik! Haven't seen you around in ages. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik:
quote: if I believe in Yahweh, but believe He is the creator of the turtle upon which the Earth rests, my Yahweh is a different being from the Yahweh Christians worship.
No he isn't. God is the same. It's our beliefs about him that differ. But statistically some people's beliefs would be closer to reality than others'.
Again, a semantic quibble. If I believe in a God who created a world on the back of a turtle swimming endlessly through space, does such a God exist outside of my mind? Is the God you believe in the same one that created the turtle-based cosmos? You seem to be saying "yes, he's the same one, only he didn't do that." I'm saying, "If he didn't do that, then he isn't the God I believe in." Two different views of the same phenomenon, I guess. My view is the one, (of course) with which I approach the concept of "Gods" in the quote in the first post.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Dag, OK, here's what's been bugging me about your explanation then. It sounds to me like you're saying that you've rejected certain other religions because of your belief in your God. What's bothersome about that is how tautological that sounds. It sounds like you've said, "that can't be my God because it's not my God." This is why it's important that you understand why you believe what you do. Or why we need to, for the purposes of this argument. Because right now, to my ears, it sounds like you don't really understand why you dismissed those other religions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is why it's important that you understand why you believe what you do. Or why we need to, for the purposes of this argument. Because right now, to my ears, it sounds like you don't really understand why you dismissed those other religions.
And I do understand why I believe what I do. This argument is not about why I believe what I do. It's about why I don't believe in the other things called gods. And I don't think there's meaning in examing why I don't believe in something else. The meaning is derived from why I believe in what I do. Therefore, the quotation - and a discussion of the quotation - provides nothing useful in terms of mutual understanding.
If there's a tautology here, it's in the quotation that started the thread.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag:
quote:That understanding why I dismiss the others doesn't help understand why an atheist dismisses all. The suggestion that I have a separate reason distinct from my belief in God for dismissing the others is why I find the original quotation lacking as a means of reaching mutual understanding.
I can understand that. I'm not sure it invalidates the usefulness of the quote in most cases, though, but that's only because I think few Christians (and few Catholics) have as considered a belief in God as you do.
For what it's worth, I think I believe as I do for similar reasons that you believe as you do. I believe that I have specific and personal experience to disbelieve the God I was raised to believe in, and dismiss the rest because (so far) considered exploration of them, and the religions that promote them do not offer my any reason to change my disbelief. I find that similar to what I understood from:
quote:I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
Actually, this might be similar in the way that "dark" is similar to "light", but hey, building bridges is sometimes a tenuous thing. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
quote:And I don't think there's meaning in examing why I don't believe in something else.
In that case, yes. I'm forced to acknowledge that the quotating is useless to you. But only because you refuse to meet the quote on it's terms. Roberts is using an if-then statement. Since you fail to qualify the if, your refutation in no way impeaches the validity of his argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since you fail to qualify the if, your refutation in no way impeaches the validity of his argument.
What "if" am I failing to qualify for, here?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm basically substituting "if" for "when" in this case. It works out to the same thing.
Edit - to be perfectly clear
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
"If you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I do understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods. So I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: For what it's worth, I think I believe as I do for similar reasons that you believe as you do. I believe that I have specific and personal experience to disbelieve the God I was raised to believe in, and dismiss the rest because (so far) considered exploration of them, and the religions that promote them do not offer my any reason to change my disbelief. I find that similar to what I understood from:
quote:I have examined multiple faiths, but not in the manner suggested. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant and raised in a religious family. I have never not considered myself a fully believing Catholic. However, I have at times investigated other faiths and specifically rejected them.
Actually, this might be similar in the way that "dark" is similar to "light", but hey, building bridges is sometimes a tenuous thing.
The "specific and personal experience" is why I don't think I can truly understand your reasons (edit: by understanding my reasons), and vice-versa. Maybe my problem with the quotation is that I'm attaching too much to the word "understanding." If what is meant is a "framework" of how the beliefs were arrived at, then it's probably accurate. But, to me, "understanding" why you believe as you do would require an understanding of those specific and personal experiences. Which I believe is a difficult task, and not one helped along by the type of analogizing suggested by the original quotation.
Edit: So yes, I can see the usefulness as a bridge-builder and understanding in the more limited sense.
[ February 17, 2006, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Your answers so far have been akin to answering the question, "why does it rain," by replying, "because water falls from the sky."
Replying to the question, "why do you disbelieve in any given god," by saying, "because I believe in my God," without any further qualification shows a similar level of understanding, in my opinion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the reason I reject those other "gods" is because of my belief in my God.
It is almost word-for-word exactly what I was going to post when I read Karl's initial post.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Replying to the question, "why do you disbelieve in any given god," by saying, "because I believe in my God," without any further qualification shows a similar level of understanding, in my opinion.
It's more like responding to the question "Why do you disbelieve that your car is blue?" with the answer "Because I believe that it is white."
If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and X is true, then no matter what Y is, I know it is false.
It's not because of Y that I know that Y is false, but because I know that X and Y are mutually exclusive and that X is true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your answers so far have been akin to answering the question, "why does it rain," by replying, "because water falls from the sky." Replying to the question, "why do you disbelieve in any given god," by saying, "because I believe in my God," without any further qualification shows a similar level of understanding, in my opinion.
Juxtapose, you assume I have answered or attempted to answer the question "why does it rain." I haven't, nor have I pretended to.
At most, I have said something akin to "it rains on earth because of the sun." Which is true, but does not fully explain why it rains.
To be specific, I mentioned that the answer to the question "why do you dismiss the other gods" depends on my beliefs in my God. I did not offer to fully explain why I believe in my God. The point is that atheists don't believe in my God. Therefore, their reasons for dismissing my God are entirely different than my reason for dismissing the others.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I do my best to follow the Commandments. It never occurred to me that the commandment "I am the L'rd your G'd, and you shall have no other gods before me" (#1 on the Top Ten List) was a commandment to atheism. But when I think about the point that you make, Karl, it kind of makes sense that way.
Interesting.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Dag and mph, I'm still not sure what you're saying makes sense to me, but I have to go get ready for class. I'll ponder over what you've said in the mean time though. Have a good one.
On a side note Dag, I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument where you'd have to defend your beliefs. I suspected there was something analogous that would be useful to what we're discussing, but I can understand you not wanting to go ito it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Much as I agree with the quote in the OP, I would like to note that there's only one athiest on these here boards, and it's me. The rest of you are mere athiers, or even athys.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and X is true, then no matter what Y is, I know it is false.
I did something vaguely similar: W, X, and Y are all dependent on A. In rejecting A, I implicitly reject W, X, and Y, as well as anything else that might be dependent on them. Later on, I came across Z. Z also depended on A, and I was therefore able to reject it regardless of how compelling it may have been in comparison to W, X, and Y.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I did something vaguely similar: W, X, and Y are all dependent on A. In rejecting A, I implicitly reject X, Y, and Z, as well as anything else that might be dependent on them. Later on, I came across Z. Z also depended on A, and I was therefore able to reject it regardless of how compelling it may have been in comparison to W, X, and Y.
This highlights the reason I find the quote uncompelling.
For example, there are materialist atheists - that is, people who first reject the concept of the supernatural and therefore reject the concept of a god. I'm under the impression that this was the most common pathway to atheism, but it's just an impression with no evidence either way.
Roberts's quotation suggests to me that he thinks the reason people "dismiss" the other gods is because they don't believe they exist.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
For me, A was not the supernatural. I don't know what the most common pathway to atheism is, but for me it wasn't materialism. I didn't come to materialism until a bit later.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: For me, A was not the supernatural. I don't know what the most common pathway to atheism is, but for me it wasn't materialism. I didn't come to materialism until a bit later.
Ditto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I could easily be wrong.
Or you two could be weird. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:I'm not sure the misunderstanding is on the part of the quote. One man's "gods" are often other men's "God". In other words, what you relegate to "gods" might very well be another believer's "infinite, perfect, primary cause, giver of morality, and associated with remarkable events."
No, that's not it.
I don't believe in the Wiccans' Goddess. She is still not gods. She is perfect, infinite, primary cause, and giver of morality. (If I misunderstood Wicca, well, I can say the same for Allah, or the Ngai, from the Kikuyu tribe of east Africa: existing or not, they're God, not gods.)
Zeus is different. He's far from perfect (just ask Io), finite, didn't always exist, and if he's the giver of morality we're in trouble.
I don't call the Olympus pantheon different from God because I disbelieve in them; I call them different because whether they exist or not, they are a clean different sort of thing, according to those who believed in them.
Lakota religion is called monotheistic, but it's sort of in-between. It has the Great Mystery, which is God; it also has Coyote, and White Buffalo Calf Woman, which are gods. The Lakota know the difference; so should we.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Dag and mph, I'm still not sure what you're saying makes sense to me, but I have to go get ready for class. I'll ponder over what you've said in the mean time though. Have a good one.
On a side note Dag, I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument where you'd have to defend your beliefs. I suspected there was something analogous that would be useful to what we're discussing, but I can understand you not wanting to go ito it.
I understand what they are saying, and I think they make a very valid point. It would be worth it to re-read what they've posted because they are not saying what you are paraphrasing them to have said. The difference, I think, is significant.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I could easily be wrong.
Or you two could be weird.
Well, I've certainly never claimed not to be weird. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I could easily be wrong.
Or you two could be weird.
Well, I've certainly never claimed not to be weird.
Ditto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm still not sure what you're saying makes sense to me, but I have to go get ready for class. I'll ponder over what you've said in the mean time though. Have a good one.
You, too.
quote:On a side note Dag, I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument where you'd have to defend your beliefs. I suspected there was something analogous that would be useful to what we're discussing, but I can understand you not wanting to go ito it.
I haven't taken it as such. I do think that it would be a deviation from the topic of the thread to start looking at the specific reasons I believe in God, which is why I've resisted doing so. It would obscure the point I'm trying to convey about the initial post.
quote:I understand what they are saying, and I think they make a very valid point. It would be worth it to re-read what they've posted because they are not saying what you are paraphrasing them to have said. The difference, I think, is significant.
This is why I always open your threads on religion, even if I don't participate. It's clear you seek mutual exchange of views.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I only exist to make KarlEd look good. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Will B, I understand the distinction you are making. I just don't think it's a distinction being made in the quote, not because the writer is unaware of such distinction, but because he is using "gods" in the sense of "other believer's Ultimate Divine" and specifically not "subordinate supernatural beings, demigods, or whathaveyou".
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I only exist to make KarlEd look good.
Don't be so modest, KoM.
Your existence makes all of us look good. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
This is what I make of this thread up to now:
1) Atheist’s logic:
quote: W, X, and Y are all dependent on A. In rejecting A, I implicitly reject W, X, and Y, as well as anything else that might be dependent on them. Later on, I came across Z. Z also depended on A, and I was therefore able to reject it regardless of how compelling it may have been in comparison to W, X, and Y.
2) Atheist’s “challenge” [OP]
quote: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen F. Roberts
3) ???
4) Theist’s “response”:
quote: "when you understand why I believe in God as I do, then you will understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods."
5) Theist’s logic:
quote:If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and X is true, then no matter what Y is, I know it is false. It's not because of Y that I know that Y is false, but because I know that X and Y are mutually exclusive and that X is true.
--------
What I’d like to add is my opinion on what might be the 3rd point: Tradition (i.e. the “environment “ in which one was brought up)
It’s like the mother tongue. The language that one understands best. (and never the one’s own choice!). In order to learn any other language, there must be a “translation” into the original language (as imperfect as that might be). And very often (not always), while speaking a “foreign” language, one still thinks in the original one, and try to express the ideas by “translation” (which might sound awkward to the foreigners). Yet learning other languages is not impossible, and even being bilingual (or more) is attainable. (i.e. speaking and understanding “perfectly” those languages) The key would be EDUCATION. Learn your language. Learn other languages. Learn that there is no “perfect” language. Learn not to judge people by their language, but by their acts.
Final note: The atheists (or non-theists) are not people that speak “no language”, they are usually the ones that can speak several languages, but don’t hold any of them above the others.
A.
PS: I love the points 1) and 5)
[edit: intended to fix the final note...]
[ February 18, 2006, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Final note: the atheist (or non-theists) are not people who don’t speak “any language”, they are usually the ones that can speak several languages, but don’t hold any of them above the others.
Good thing I don't judge you by your language skills.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
thanks Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Will B, I understand the distinction you are making. I just don't think it's a distinction being made in the quote, not because the writer is unaware of such distinction, but because he is using "gods" in the sense of "other believer's Ultimate Divine" and specifically not "subordinate supernatural beings, demigods, or whathaveyou".
It's definitely not being made in the quote, but it should be. He's _basing_ his claim on one distinction (monotheists don't believe polytheism), and ignoring, with determination, all other distinctions, including the ones that lead monotheists to disbelieve polytheism! It's like a vegetarian saying, "Bricks and burgers are both physical objects. You don't eat bricks, but you eat burgers. How inconsistent! Stop eating burgers, and be like me!"
Sleight of mind. If a disbelief in gods really logically implied a disbelief in God, he could have shown it. Since it doesn't, all he can do is blur the distinctions.
Philosophy isn't easy.
[ February 18, 2006, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The point is that the actual evidence for Odin is just as good as that for your god. You really have no reason to choose one over the other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"When you understand why I believe in God as I do, then you will understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes, invisible internal states of mind, we know. The point is that the Odinists have that too. Why should we believe you and not them?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This isn't about why you should believe anything.
Unlike you, other people can discuss religion in a manner so as to try to understand what others think, not to try to change what those others believe.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Brooke Medicine Eagle talks about some approaches to this very discussion of recognition:
A) Turning our primary attention to the Sacred Web of Life, of which we are a part and entangled.
B) Paying attention to the whole -- a "quality" of attention -- is akin to holiness, and is an integral part of everyday life.
If we understand that the Great Spirit lives in all things, then we understand that:
*All things are related. *Primary to our being and our relationships is the feminine energy of nurture and renewal. *Each of us has Spirit within to develop and bring forward. Spirit can speak through each of us. *Each of us is a small, yet significant part of the wholeness -- and at the same time, we CONTAIN the wholeness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But Dag, if what you think is false, why should I care to understand it?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Because you recognize that Dag is both a part --and holds all parts -- of the Great Spirit.
As do you.
That's why.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But Dag, if what you think is false, why should I care to understand it?
If you don't want to understand, then don't participate in conversations that are about seeking to understand.
And certainly don't try to tell me that I "really have no reason to choose one over the other."
I do have a reason - many of them in fact. If all you want to do is insert your "nuh uh!" into the conversation, I'll get back to work on that UBB ignore feature for FireFox.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'll get back to work on that UBB ignore feature for FireFox.
Pretty please?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For that, I would switch from IE.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But Dag, if what you think is false, why should I care to understand it?
How can you possibly say something is false without an accurate understanding of the something in question?
That aside, how can you possibly hope to persuade someone away from a false belief if you don't understand that belief?
Once again you demonstrate that in fact you really aren't engaging in these conversations to change anyone's minds, you're just strutting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Because you recognize that Dag is both a part --and holds all parts -- of the Great Spirit.
As do you.
That's why.
I most assuredly recognise nothing of the kind. I assume you were joking?
quote:If you don't want to understand, then don't participate in conversations that are about seeking to understand.
OK, look at it this way : I am not seeking to understand your beliefs, but I am seeking to understand why someone would want to understand something they believe is false. (Whew, that's a lot of understanding!)
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: OK, look at it this way : I am not seeking to understand your beliefs, but I am seeking to understand why someone would want to understand something they believe is false. (Whew, that's a lot of understanding!)
I stand by what I said . . . parts is parts, and they all add up to the whole. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
btw, sunimuonA I think your summary of how you percieved the discussion up to now was fabulous, and would like to thank you for it.
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think I'd amend "able to reject Z" in my summary snippet to "required to reject Z" for the sake of consistency. I did find Z very compelling; I didn't study it with an eye toward rejecting it.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
BannaOj, don’t thank me for the summary... Thank those who were able to express these points (clearly) in the first place. What I was trying to do was to observe that the debate tends to be fought on one or the other of the extremes, yet the “solutions” are to be found on “the middle ground”. (btw, I intended the 5 points as an horizontal panorama, not as a priority list).
The points 1) and 5) are IMO both equally valid logical schemes. But neither one would be able to build a “solid” case against the other, because they are based on obviously different assumptions/premises. Therefore I’d say it’s pointless to try to “convince/convert the other” to one’s own personal view of things (on this particular matter). An interesting point is the 3rd, and I’ve merely suggested one possibility. What the others think that should go there is a debate that I look forward to.
If we agree to share our views, and do our best to learn other’s, maybe we’ll see that this timeless (as opposed to “recent”) debate has nothing to do with the two extremes, but with our disposition to meet “in the middle”, to tolerate the fact that each and every one of us are somewhat different (except exceptions ).
And yes, I believe this kind of forum (e.g. Hatrack) is such a “middle ground”, and I’m happy to be able to participate (as long as my language skills don’t disqualify me, of course).
A.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:OK, look at it this way : I am not seeking to understand your beliefs, but I am seeking to understand why someone would want to understand something they believe is false. (Whew, that's a lot of understanding!)
If this is true, then shouldn't your puzzlement be directed at me rather than Dagonee?
I seek to understand why people believe what they do for several reasons. Primarily, this is because I believe most interpersonal conflict is borne of misunderstanding. Eliminate the misunderstanding and very often you can eliminate the conflict, if not the disagreement itself.
Another reason I seek to understand that which I do not believe is because I seek to know and understand a person as a whole, if there is much about them I respect. That is why I tend to ask more questions specifically of Dagonee (to use him as just one example) than I might of someone who generally spouts unconsidered nonsense. Dag has shown himself repeatedly to be a good source of well-considered information in many political and legal threads, so when I see his posts in other threads, I tend to lend them more weight. I know that he might not be 100 percent right about what he states in areas outside his expertise, especially areas where "right" itself is elusive, but at the very least, I have confidence that what he posts is something he's thought about. I've never known him to toe a party line for its own sake, or to spout unconsidered propaganda to promote a cause over the truth (as he sees it).
Finally, I seek to understand what I do not believe because there is always the tiniest of possibilities that maybe I've missed something. Now, I don't think that I've missed something about Catholicism, or Mormonism or general Christianity per se, that would change my over-all view of them, but I recognize that I don't know everything about them, and I certainly don't know everything about those who love them. I don't start religious threads seeking to be converted, but I also don't start them seeking to disparage believers. I start them seeking understanding of the believers, which you can't have if you don't understand the belief--the individual belief that exists beyond the party line.
The primary pitfall for you (KoM) as far as I can see it, is that you understand why you don't believe and assume that is all there is to the belief system itself. That probably works in many, if not most cases, because (in my opinion) most religious beliefs don't go beyond the Santa Clause level. I also know why I don't believe, but I don't presume to assume that all believers, and especially the considered believers, would have the same reasons if only they were smart like me.
[ February 20, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't start religious threads seeking to be converted...
I think this is the key. You don't even have to be open to conversion in order to have a fruitful discussion on the subject. I also think that you (Karl) understand and exemplify this very well. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
What does it mean to be open to conversion?
I feel that the whole idea of (willful) religious conversion is absurd. (I use the term here as meaning: conversion to one particular religion as a result of “convincing with reasons"). Is it possible to be one day a Muslim and the next a Christian?
And when I say “reasons”, I can see just a few kinds: a) faith (or pure belief) b) material reasons (wealth, power) c) logical reasons (or shortly reasoning) d) other reasons (e.g. fear for one’s life)
I see Religion as a pure matter of faith. So if somebody renounces one religion (e.g. the one that person was brought up with) to take on another, using type a) reasons, then I wonder what does Religion mean to that person. (That’s why it doesn’t bother me at all when people don’t accept conversion, it’s only natural.)
If one uses type b) reasons, that is simply despicable and I don’t bother to make any comment.
If the reasons are of c) type, then it contradicts the very concept of Religion. Paraphrasing a great man, I’d content that “As far as Reason refers to Religion, it is not useful; and as far as it is useful, it does not refer to Religion”. (That sounds a bit too extreme, I agree, one might bring up exceptions - see points 1) and 5) of the list above -, but they are not conversion tools at all).
If the reasons are of d) type, then it is not willful conversion at any rate.
To sum up, I’d say that if one can change the religion one was brought up with, by reasoning, then the conversion must be to non-theism. Am I wrong? Please correct me on any of the points above.
A.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There is only room for one God, to be the Prime Knower who collapses the probability wave that determines all existence for the whole universe or multiverse. That assumption also implies that any other claimed god or gods must be false. There can only be one true one. Any God who is not big enough to fill up all existence to the exclusion of all other gods, is not a big enough God to be worthy of worship.
Now, most Christians believe that the true God has the power of omnipresence, meaning He can be everywhere all at once; and also God has chosen to appear to us in three distinct but united Persons, whom we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according to the roles they have chosen to play.
Yet we still regard all three Divine Persons as being One God, the only God the universe or multiverse has room for.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: To sum up, I’d say that if one can change the religion one was brought up with, by reasoning, then the conversion must be to non-theism. Am I wrong? Please correct me on any of the points above.
By reasoning alone, yes, I believe you are correct. But I personally do not see reasoning and faith as mutually exclusive. If you rely solely on faith, yes, there will be no reason, and if you rely solely on reason, yes, there will be no faith. But it is possible, in my experience, to have both. It is possible to have reason support faith and faith support reason. This tends to make those who accept reason and nothing else rather upset, as well as upsetting those who accept faith and nothing else. But we can't please everybody now can we?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A., I meant "open to conversion" to encompass the range of possibilities that fall between (1) admitting the possibility that you might be wrong, and (2) being potentially willing to change your mind at some unspecified future date.
Ron,
quote:There is only room for one God, to be the Prime Knower who collapses the probability wave that determines all existence for the whole universe or multiverse. That assumption also implies that any other claimed god or gods must be false. There can only be one true one.
This isn't true. There could easily be more than one, or even a multitude. One or even none of them could be a Prime Knower as you describe; such a first cause is not a necessity.
quote:Any God who is not big enough to fill up all existence to the exclusion of all other gods, is not a big enough God to be worthy of worship.
This is a value judgment. I can't fault you for making it; indeed, I presently find your god unworthy of worship, entirely apart from my lack of belief in his existence. However, I recognize that assessments of "worthiness of worship" in this context are subjective. You should do the same. There is no particular reason that a non-Prime Knower deity would be unworthy of worship.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: But it is possible, in my experience, to have both. It is possible to have reason support faith and faith support reason.
Is it too much if I ask for some examples where reason supports faith for you?
The other way around I could see it for myself; I strongly believe that the basic rules of reasoning (of logic) are useful while trying to better life conditions in this material world. I have faith in that. Using those rules we can propagate the knowledge that we have gathered so far, reliably enough. Yet I know that no logical system (theory) based on axioms can be consistent and complete at the same time. ( Hilbert's program was proven impossible, thanks to Gödel.) But I can live with that, I don’t need to know that Reason is "all-powerful" and "all-perfect". (Maybe this is the main difference between my faith and religious faith… )
A.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Allow me to rephrase and clarify. I stand by my previous statement that they are able to support each other, but any examples I give would eventually come down to opinions and debates which don't have a place in this thread. So let me put it like this: Fath and reason can and must coexist. Faith is what steps in when reason fails. Faith, or disbelief. And reason does fail. If it didn't, there would be no reason for scientists. Someone recently said to me that scientists exist to prove each other wrong. I'm not sure about the complete validity of that statement, but the point I'm getting at is that reason is imperfect, or incomplete. There is something missing, and its my belief there always will be. We will never have all the answers. So faith must always exist. Perhaps faith that it will eventually all be explained by science, perhaps faith in God. But faith nonetheless. And that faith cannot be disproven. Look at the two instances I've given, faith that all we be explained by science or faith in God. Prove to me that everything will be explained by science, thereby negating the need for a God. Or prove to me that there is a God, negating the need for a reasonable explanation of everything. Neither is possible. I believe in the power of God. I don't know why. Maybe because I've been raised that way, maybe because I've seen it, maybe because He made me. The specifics aren't important. The point is that that is where I choose to lay my faith. And people are just as entitled to try to change someone elses mind about where they lay their faith as they are about where they lay their reason. There's nothing wrong with that, though most of the time it proves futile. But you cannot disprove faith, just as you cannot disprove reason. And since you cannot disprove faith, you cannot disprove anything that relies on faith, including the belief in God.
To end with a quote from someone sometime somewhere: "Show me a man without faith, I'll show you a man without reason."
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:I believe in the power of God. I don't know why. Maybe because I've been raised that way, maybe because I've seen it, maybe because He made me. The specifics aren't important.
If only more people would be able to put this into words... Then maybe the level of tolerance in the World would increase.
A.
PS: nice ending quote
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I meant "open to conversion" to encompass the range of possibilities that fall between (1) admitting the possibility that you might be wrong, and (2) being potentially willing to change your mind at some unspecified future date.
So does that imply that "not being open to conversion" encompasses the range of possibilities that fall between (1') not admitting the possibility that you might be wrong, and (2') being absolutely unwilling to change your mind at some unspecified future date?
I personally doubt that there are a lot of people like that. But then again, I’ve been proven wrong before…
A.
PS: I’m not trying to be obtuse here, I just think it’s an interesting question, otherwise I wouldn’t bring up these tangents…
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure that it does imply that, but I can't quite elucidate a substitute description for the range of people you're talking about. They certainly do exist; there are examples here on Hatrack.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Good thing I don't judge you by your language skills.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)