Rhythm Wrote:

bennyboy Wrote:The problem is that in the case of almost any God idea, the box is unopenable.

Is it, lol ?  I've never heard of a god idea that's even remotely close to unopenable.  God is this, god is that, god did this or that, or will do this or that.  I doubt that people could form an attachment, as they do, to an unopenable god box.  

Quote:It makes me wonder how many sick fucks have done actually cat-in-box experiments just because it seems like such a fun idea, though.  

IKR?  World's full of deviants.

But how would you ever get a cat to climb into a box?

Put a mouse in it.

So here's the thing. Words are symbols. We know that when someone uses a word, it means (or at least is should mean) something. So really, I think both responses to a poorly defined question make perfect sense.

You: I don't know what you're talking about, so of I course I can't say I have a belief in it.
Me: I don't know what you mean, so I don't know if your symbol represents one of my existing beliefs.

In both cases, we're kind of just playing word games. The real response to questions like this is "Get the fuck off my porch, and if you walk on my lawn, I'll release my dogs!!"

That answer is much less ambiguous, and is independent of any philosophical assumptions or personal biases.

(August 5, 2016 at 9:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Rhythm Wrote:Is it, lol ?  I've never heard of a god idea that's even remotely close to unopenable.  God is this, god is that, god did this or that, or will do this or that.  I doubt that people could form an attachment, as they do, to an unopenable god box.  


IKR?  World's full of deviants.

But how would you ever get a cat to climb into a box?

Tell it not to.

The thing is, the vast majority of theists aren't just thinking of some bland intelligent force. They think they know all sorts of details about it, details they can't possibly know. At this point, it's pretty safe to discard their ideas as fantasy, even if it might be very roughly based on something that could be real.

And the consequences of a force existing we know nothing about, and probably can't learn anything about for now, is pretty irrelevant. So either way, it's a pretty pointless question.

(August 5, 2016 at 9:59 am)robvalue Wrote: The thing is, the vast majority of theists aren't just thinking of some bland intelligent force. They think they know all sorts of details about it, details they can't possibly know. At this point, it's pretty safe to discard their ideas as fantasy, even if it might be very roughly based on something that could be real.

Oh, absolutely. And to be honest, if I was on a Christian forum, I'd probably just declare as gnostic atheist-- because I feel pretty confident that everything they say will be fetid horse shit. It's only MY definitions of God, or other philosophical views, which I'm likely to seriously consider.

Quote:And the consequences of a force existing we know nothing about, and probably can't learn anything about for now, is pretty irrelevant. So either way, it's a pretty pointless question.

Again, absolutely. Ask Christians why you should pray, and you're unlikely to get the response, "Because then you'll get the life you want and deserve." And if they DO say that, they haven't read the Bible.

So. . . real God who can't help me live my life with more satisfaction and enjoyment? Fuck it, I could be walking the dogs or banging the wife right now. By the way, I was once fairly seriously religious (or at least spiritual). And I have to say that the disconnect between my behavior, my spiritual condition, and the resultant circumstances really beat it out of me. I mean. . . you go out of your way to help some kid, and he runs away with your stereo. You honor a disadvantageous contract because you shook hands, and honor is honor, and the OTHER guy fucks off with the deposit you didn't really want to pay in the first place. That kind of stuff.

Being good just doesn't seem to pay off.

(August 5, 2016 at 9:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

bennyboy Wrote:Maybe not.  But as it turns out, you DO have a believe about the thing-- you just don't know it, because you haven't learned what the heck I'm talking about yet.  So if you asked ME, "Do you believe in boobledyboo," I'd say, "I don't know. . . what does that word mean to you?"  I don't disregard your stance, of default disbelieving until you are a good enough definition to form a coherent answer.  But I'd rather force the coherent question first before making a statement about beliefs.  If pressed, I'd say, "Dude, step off!  I don't know what you're even talking about," and not "Dude, I don't believe in that. . . but can you tell me what it is?"

Not saying you're wrong.  Just saying that the way I would approach that situation would be different than your way of approaching it.

In general, I'd say I'm agnostic on God in generalfor a variety of reasons.  But as soon as you define what your specific usage of the term "God" means, I have an excellent chance of being able to make a belief statement about it.  And in my experience, I'm either hard atheist or antitheist about almost all the specific God ideas I'm presented with; and the others I generally disagree with on a personal level: "God is love," I would say such a God must be real since I believe love is real, but I don't think much of that definition, and I wouldn't really call that particular thing God.

I don't believe in things before I know what they are. In my opinion I can't believe in things before I know what they are. YMMV. Ask me a yes or no question, and I'll usually give you a yes or no answer. The person asking the question has some responsibility to be clear, don't they?

And with God, people are usually playing games when they define God as something I would accept the existence of. If you define God as the universe, sure, 'God as the universe' exists, but so does 'God as that cat' or 'God as the itch in my crotch'. A word that can mean anything means nothing. I think a very good case can be made for sticking with the dictionary on this one.

We know enough about the definition of the word god to intuitively know that such definitions are playing fast and loose. We have to know what something is to know what it is not. It's this kernel of belief about the 'real' meaning of the word which seems to give the lie to benny's ignosticism/agnosticism.

(August 5, 2016 at 11:39 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We know enough about the definition of the word god to intuitively know that such definitions are playing fast and loose.  We have to know what something is to know what it is not.  It's this kernel of belief about the 'real' meaning of the word which seems to give the lie to benny's ignosticism/agnosticism.

The definition of God depends on the purpose for holding it. If you care about cosmogony, God will be whatever created the Universe. if you care about family, God may be Sky Daddy. If you care about what it means to be human, God might be a kind of archetypal Man. If you're a bad parent, God may be the the threat of hell or an excuse for the rod. If you're me, and you are most interested in mind and the nature of experience, God might be the sum total of a pan-psychic universe. A jealous God idea, like the Christian one, will try to be all these things, with great hilarity to ensue.

But can we find the common element among these? How would we here define God, you and me?

(August 5, 2016 at 1:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 5, 2016 at 11:39 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We know enough about the definition of the word god to intuitively know that such definitions are playing fast and loose.  We have to know what something is to know what it is not.  It's this kernel of belief about the 'real' meaning of the word which seems to give the lie to benny's ignosticism/agnosticism.

The definition of God depends on the purpose for holding it.  If you care about cosmogony, God will be whatever created the Universe.  if you care about family, God may be Sky Daddy.  If you care about what it means to be human, God might be a kind of archetypal Man.  If you're a bad parent, God may be the the threat of hell or an excuse for the rod.  If you're me, and you are most interested in mind and the nature of experience, God might be the sum total of a pan-psychic universe.  A jealous God idea, like the Christian one, will try to be all these things, with great hilarity to ensue.

But can we find the common element among these?  How would we here define God, you and me?

Pretty much some higher power that's so amazing it must be God.

I would say for metaphorical or pantheistic notion of God, no one can say such a being does not exist. But for me, I'm fairly confident a deist God is at least not logical, and if it does happen to exist, then that's in spite of what we can demonstrate with logic (or how we use it, at least).

(August 5, 2016 at 1:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote: How would we here define God, you and me?

Wikis got it handled.

Quote:noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   synonyms:
   the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
   [/url][url=https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&biw=1768&bih=852&q=define+Yahweh&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMv4-u-6rOAhXM7oMKHXIbBHYQ_SoIIDAA]
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"
   synonyms:
   deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
   "sacrifices to appease the gods"
   

The above is -all- that;s being asked about when someone asks whether or not you are an atheist, a deist, or a theist (gnostic or agnostic). We can wiggle, but we can't leave the field...or else our descriptor no longer refers to it's subject. Do I think that there is a creative force? Plenty, you'll need to be more specific. None of them are gods.