The God Debate

[Dries]

Today, most people accept that the gods of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Romans, the Greeks and the Norse gods did not exits and they were only mythical figures.  The question that begs to be answered is the following: Why would the god of the three dominant monotheistic religions (christianity, islam and judaism) suddenly rise to be the "real god"? If we readily accept that the ancient gods were the products of superstition, doesn't it follows automatically that the cycle of superstition is being  perpetuated? In my view at least, it seems to be the case. There's  no logical basis for the belief in the existance of the more "ancient"  gods than there is in the belief of a singular omnipotant god.  Furthermore, if one consider the sheer size and complexity af the universe and compare it to the creation stories (or myths; I wouldn't even call it a theory), in my view it's clear that everything in existance was the result of a chance occurence. So, stop worrying about god, enjoy your life and look forward to the eternal deep sleep.    

[i_am_i]

I define God as a human fabrication, an invisible anthropomorphized being that helped to explain naturally occuring phenomena to primitive humans. For this being to have any substantial impact on these humans it required a representative, a priest or a shaman, whatever, to describe what this supernatural being wanted the people to do in order to survive and be able to thrive.

This concept of a great all-knowing all-powerful being caught on and took hold and it's still here today, perpetuated by a priest class that has everything to gain by people buying what they're selling, and their business is doing very well indeed.

A few problems with your definition: first it is a rather simplistic theory of the foundation of religion-like the fall of Rome, there was no single cause. Secondly, does this mean that you believe God exists? I mean you clearly think God is a human construct, and as your definition of God is as a human construct, if you are correct then so is your definition of God, and as such your God exists (in a rather abstract sense, but still you get the point).

God exists in the same sense that Bugs Bunny exists, if that's what you mean. And what's wrong with my theory, if that's what it is, of the foundation of religion? It had to start somewhere didn't it?

[Dagda]

Today, most people accept that the gods of the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Romans, the Greeks and the Norse gods did not exits and they were only mythical figures.  The question that begs to be answered is the following: Why would the god of the three dominant monotheistic religions (christianity, islam and judaism) suddenly rise to be the "real god"? If we readily accept that the ancient gods were the products of superstition, doesn't it follows automatically that the cycle of superstition is being  perpetuated? In my view at least, it seems to be the case. There's  no logical basis for the belief in the existance of the more "ancient"  gods than there is in the belief of a singular omnipotant god.  Furthermore, if one consider the sheer size and complexity af the universe and compare it to the creation stories (or myths; I wouldn't even call it a theory), in my view it's clear that everything in existance was the result of a chance occurence. So, stop worrying about god, enjoy your life and look forward to the eternal deep sleep.    

What does this have to do with your definition of God?
This is indeed an interesting argument in its own right, and I fear I cannot do it justice in a thread not dedicated to the thesis, but if I can be brief: I think the pagan deities cannot be tied up in an easy explanation. I think there were indeed some religious deities which came about through various chance occurrences (natural phenomenon, creative lunatics etc), but this cannot, in my theistic mind, explain all of these deities. Some other (if not most) will be misrepresentation of the divine, but this is still not completely satisfactory. To explain them completely I turn to a rather interesting theory: anything which is believed in takes upon a form of existence and allows it to act upon the world in a limited fashion (the collective power of the human mind creating an anthropomorphic supernatural entity which can act upon the material world in a limited fashion). In this manner I am not an atheist in regards to these other gods, but I do believe that there needs to be some kind of supreme head boss God which is independent of the human consciousness, at least in some way.




G-roll, I think you have given a bad analogy. For instance I could claim that smoking cigarettes is bad for me without ever studying the medical journals in-depth. However, I would have a rough idea of what a cigarette was, and at least some of the properties of the fore mentioned fag. Indeed, at no point would I attempt to bring into question the existence of the cigarette, and if pressed for a definition I would be able to explain the properties in such a way that someone completely in ignorance of cigarettes would be able to recognise one after our discussion. However, if you wished to argue with someone who thought cigarettes were a harmless habit, it would not help your case if you claimed that you don’t need to know what a cigarette is or what it does to know you are right. I think the harmless habit man/woman would probably win the argument by default.

[Dries]

What does this have to do with your definition of God?

OK, here's my definition of god:

[pinkocommie]

What does this have to do with your definition of God?

OK, here's my definition of god:

I agree with this definition.

[Tanker]

Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

[elliebean]

Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

Exactly what I attempted to say above, in so many words. Thanks.

[McQ]

Man, Godwin's law is on overdrive in this thread.  :yay:  :yay:

[Whitney]

Man, Godwin's law is on overdrive in this thread.  :yay:  :yay:

 

[Dagda]

Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

No, it is not the essence of what I am asking you. An imaginary friend, by its very definition, cannot exist out with the imagination of the creator (it is imaginary). By this definition I believe in imaginary friends-I believe you have one and he exists in your imagination. I cannot describe it, but I can certainly define it-a friend which exists solely in your imagination.

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

[Tanker]

Dagda you are asking us to descibe an idea that exists in yours and other theists heads. Theists have many different varied ideas of what "god" is. Atheist don't share any of the various ideas of what god is our deffintion is null.

Imagine we are both 5 years old. I have an imaginay friend. I ask you to describe him. Can you? This is in essance what you ask of us.

No, it is not the essence of what I am asking you. An imaginary friend, by its very definition, cannot exist out with the imagination of the creator (it is imaginary). By this definition I believe in imaginary friends-I believe you have one and he exists in your imagination. I cannot describe it, but I can certainly define it-a friend which exists solely in your imagination.

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

I was afraid you would focus on the "imaginary" of my example rather then the context. So I havecome up with more NON-imaginary examples.

The most beatiful place I've ever been, can you describe it for me?
A painting I wish to make please describe it for me?
There is a poem that means alot to me, can you tell me why it does?
What is my perfect woman like?
What is my favorite color and why is it?

You can imagine a beatiful place but it won't be mine your descrition will be null.
You can imagine a painting but it won't be mine you description will be null.
You have heard poems but it won't be mine your decription will be null.
Your taste in women is not mine your description will be null
Your asthetics aren't mine your reasons will be null.

A god, any god, is an idea. Many peoples idea of "god" are similar and yet not the same. Hence the many denominations within any large religion. I have no religion and I have no god. I could decribe what I think other peoples idea of god is but it won't be my personal idea of what a "god" is becase that will be a null.

[Dries]

What does this have to do with your definition of God?

OK, here's my definition of god:

I agree with this definition.

   

[Dries]

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

WTF??????

[Ellainix]

In the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

Most of us define God as something that doesn't exist.

[notself]

Dagda,

You have yet to clearly define your concept of god.  

What or who is your god?
 
Does your god require worship?  If so why?  

Has your god inspired or directly written any sacred instructions for you?  If so what are those instructions?

How are those instructions different from moral or ethical codes of other religions or philosophies?

Does your god have to be obeyed?  If so why?  What happens if she is not obeyed?

What does god do for a job?  She clearly does not answer prayers.  She clearly does not object to or try to correct pain and suffering.  She clearly does not heal amputees.