The God Debate

[Dagda]

I find that the definition of God is central to the debate over His existence (what are we arguing about?) but it seems to be ignored almost completely. For instance, if we define God as all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then we should all be atheists as no such being can possibly exist (omnipotence as most people understand it is a contradiction, and there is the problem of evil to consider). However, if we define God in different manner (such as the feminist critique or mystical interpretation) then we may get into a proper discussion

[i_am_i]

I find that the definition of God is central to the debate over His existence (what are we arguing about?) but it seems to be ignored almost completely. For instance, if we define God as all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then we should all be atheists as no such being can possibly exist (omnipotence as most people understand it is a contradiction, and there is the problem of evil to consider). However, if we define God in different manner (such as the feminist critique or mystical interpretation) then we may get into a proper discussion

Only if first we can all agree that God is not a human fabrication.

[Whitney]

"god" is very generally used to describe something  that created all that exists.  But, no matter how genreally or logically you construct the definition of a god you end up with one of two things 1) you still can't prove it is real 2) you make the idea of god so insignificant that the word nature or universe can just as easily describe what you are talking about thus taking away the need to use 'god' as a description

[Tanker]

Those are deffinitions of god strait from the Bible. If you can agree that they are contradictry and illogical the you agree the Bible may be wrong or flawed. If the Bible is wrong or flawed on the very nature of god then how can you be sure if any of it is right? If you can't be sure any of it is right then why follow it at all and call yourself a Christian let alone a Roman Catholic (one of the most dogmatic denominations)?

[McQ]

I think we're all missing the larger point that Dagda is making here, which is to try to define what we mean when we say, "god". Get it? You can't just dismiss Dagda's post. It's the whole point.

[elliebean]

Well there's no point in an atheist defining god, since we don't have one and didn't raise the debate. That leaves it to Dagda to define it, which really just reduces it to a question of whether Dagda's concept of god exists - which is rather pointless as well, as it leaves out the infinite other conceptions of "god" that could be thought up. So, no matter how many times you win the argument, there's another one to bring out. "Does this one exist? How about this one?"

[McQ]

Well there's no point in an atheist defining god, since we don't have one and didn't raise the debate. That leaves it to Dagda to define it, which really just reduces it to a question of whether Dagda's concept of god exists - which is rather pointless as well, as it leaves out the infinite other conceptions of "god" that could be thought up. So, no matter how many times you win the argument, there's another one to bring out. "Does this one exist? How about this one?"

I understand what you're saying here, and don't entirely disagree, but one thing I find I've been able to do (with only a little success, I'll admit) is have the philosophical conversations with different types of believers (from pagans to roman catholics and in between) and narrow down what their concept of what god is and isn't.

That helps ultimately, in preventing me as a non-believer, from just dismissing, out of hand, the ideas and concepts of the believer. So, there no harm in at least narrowing down a description of god in an opening conversation. In fact, even though an atheist should eventually not agree that ANY definition works, it's important to know where the believer is placing his or her concept of god. Contextually, it is very important to do that up front.

The tendency is for non-believers to dismiss things out of hand. I'm guilty of it, especially when I'm just not in the mood to debate or converse. I saw some really ugly examples of it just a few minutes ago in the thread that Whitney ended up locking (the "school project"). I was about to post my agreement with Dagda in that thread, but didn't get there in time, as it had already been locked.

Anyway, I hope I made some sense here. I'm trying to multi-task and fear I might have not expressed this very well.

 

[elliebean]

You expressed yourself very well. And I agree completely that it's important [for the theist] to clearly state a definition at the outset. Too often, in my experience, this is not done and the atheist is left chasing around different conceptions of god as the theist repeatedly (and probably inadvertently) changes his definition to suit the needs of his argument as they go along.

As far as the school project goes, I saw it not as ugliness, but as some humorous venting by some exaspirated people directed at a more than likely disingenuous thread in which there was probably never really an intent to engage in any intellectual discourse. For what it's worth, I offered a (for me) more serious rebuttal before joining in the fun.

To Dagda: I meant no personal disrespect in my response to you in that thread. My intent was to express basically what I stated above, pictorially. Sometimes I have a mean-ish sense of humor and can't resist. It did give me a much-needed chuckle, but I apologize if I came across as attacking you in any way.

[i_am_i]

I think we're all missing the larger point that Dagda is making here, which is to try to define what we mean when we say, "god". Get it? You can't just dismiss Dagda's post. It's the whole point.

Okay. 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.

[karadan]

I think we're all missing the larger point that Dagda is making here, which is to try to define what we mean when we say, "god". Get it? You can't just dismiss Dagda's post. It's the whole point.

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.

Like a really bad virus. I hope the human race can find a cure.

[Dagda]

Well there's no point in an atheist defining god, since we don't have one and didn't raise the debate. That leaves it to Dagda to define it, which really just reduces it to a question of whether Dagda's concept of god exists - which is rather pointless as well, as it leaves out the infinite other conceptions of "god" that could be thought up. So, no matter how many times you win the argument, there's another one to bring out. "Does this one exist? How about this one?"

I disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

Like a really bad virus. I hope the human race can find a cure.

Hitler said the same thing about Jews. Be careful when you define things as a virus or as rats; this tends to slowly take away the humanity of the subject and from here it becomes all the easier to condone violence against the now sub-human beast. Most genocide begins with this kind of language. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that members of this forum are actively aiming at a genocide, I am just saying beware of using that kind of language when talking about any fellow human being.

Okay. 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).

[curiosityandthecat]

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

[Whitney]

I disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

You don't have to know what something is to not believe in it.  There are probably lots of strange mythical beliefs that I have never heard of that I don't believe in.

[Tanker]

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

Hopefully this is as close as we'll get.

[G-Roll]

I disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

I see what you are saying and to some degree I even agree. But your statement is something along the lines of  you don’t know until you know. Or the old expression you don’t know till you try it.
I personally don’t have to try and smoke crack to know its bad for me. I doubt one needs to really study its chemical makeup and ingredients to understand why its bad for you.
For an atheist the same can be said about gods. I know I have no belief in bible god, so why would I feel an inkling of faith to some other god, or gods, or goddesses?
Now I have no idea what Jainism is. I don’t know if there is even a god involved, so no… why would I claim its stupid? I don’t understand that logic. Which is different from my crack statement. Because I know I don’t want all the negative aspects of being a crack head. Just as I don’t want (what I feel are) all the negative aspects of god worshipping. And no im not saying people of faith act like crack heads.
I suppose the argument of seeing all this as a “blank statement” or “from scratch” could be taken. But that’s not the case and its honestly not realistic. Perhaps if I were a young child with little to no experience of the world that argument could work. But (unfortunately) im not young, and ill take a wager that everyone on this forum is of at least high school age. So everyone here has enough experience to at least dismiss this Jainism or follow their curiosity and then judge with just a smidge of understanding.

Lol by chance would your name happen to be Janice? Janisim-the way of Janice!!