Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Friday, November 25, 2005

whether or not there is a dog...

Ok, so I'm a bit dyslexic tonight... Blame the cheap Cab Sav... I'm having a problem with god lately. Or to be more exact, with atheists. I don't know why but I just kneejerk every time they start attacking people who want to be more tolerant towards Godbotherers. A very intolerant lot these atheists... But it's the way they do it... That stance of intellectual superiority they adopt... The dismissive way they deal with Godbotherers... The pseudo scientific innuendo they dress their atheism in... It irks me, I tell you... It irks me...

Mind you I don't really know why... I really can't cop the Judeo/Christian/Muslim godthing either...

I think it's the thought-control tactics of some atheists trying to deny talk of god in political debate. Why? It's just debate. Why not let someone bring up god/religion in whatever way they want. Why should there be taboos in political debate? Why try to control what can and can't be mentioned in political debate? Why can't debate be completely open? What are these atheists so afraid of? Would the sky fall? I think those kinds of atheists give more tolerant atheists a bad name...

And if you say there's no god, what do you mean by god anyway? Define your terms! Exactly what is it that you say does not exist? And how do you know that it doesn't exist?
Come on!!! Come on!!!
.

24 Comments:

Blogger The Ranting Human said...

So... Which one are you? Theist or Atheist? Or Agnostic?

November 25, 2005 10:39 PM  
Blogger JahTeh said...

I called by to say I didn't realize you had left so many comments on my blog and I hadn't answered. No wonder you thought you had offended me.
I don't mind God being debated, it's religion that is poisoning the world and that includes the religion of greed.
A particular religion's laws exclude other religions which is why secular laws which cover everyone should be the only laws debated in politics.
God rot you Bear, (Elizabethan curse) it's late and you're making me think and my brain hurts.

November 25, 2005 10:55 PM  
Blogger MuppetLord said...

Hmm....technically, the denial of God is in fact a belief of God.

Of course, I could be wrong.

November 25, 2005 11:48 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Ranting Human, it depends on which day of the week you ask me. I tend to oscillate between atheist and agnostic. Then again, we still haven't defined the key term - What/who is god? Is god a being? What is the neature of this being? Can it be anthropomorphised? Is it right to assign gender to this being? Are there more than one? Is there a god committee? Is god something else, some sort of cosmic consciousness perhaps? A collective consciousness? What? Until we know what god is, how can we even begin the debate about whether he/she/they/it exists or not?

I think it's the height of ignorance to declare that there is no god without first systematically eliminating each possible definition of every possible god concept.

It's this line of thinking that drives me back towards agnosticism every time.

JahTeh, but how can we frame secular laws which are not an affront to one religion or another? How dare secularists frame laws which may be in contravention of the laws of a higher being? And remember, we clever little secularists haven't even got the balls to define who/what god is, so how do we know which religions to appease and which to ignore? Invalidate all religions? What if one of them has it pretty much well sorted out? Baby/bathwater? Hmmmm?

Muppedlord, denial of which god? Who/what is god? Define that which you seek to deny the existence of.

How can we kill the accused if the jury is still out?

Anyone still have an opinion they glibly wish to hurl about? Hmmm?

November 26, 2005 2:08 AM  
Blogger MuppetLord said...

Well...let me see. God is generally seen to be a Christian symbol, and as many atheists are against Christianity, in whichever form, then we are talking the denial of the Christian God.

I don't know if atheists don't believe in Yahweh, Allah, or indeed any of the multitude of Gods that are part of Hinduism etc.

I believe the Buddha was a deity, I'm not sure if he's classed as a God.

Shinto, I don't know enough about, although it is animist.

I am not sure whether the Native American (or whatever the latest name is for the various tribes in the Americas) spirits are Gods or not.

Are we considering Greek, Roman and other Gods in this as well? I suppose there are a lot to consider.

I think you've opened a can of worms here.

November 26, 2005 2:35 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Muppetlord, if an atheist denies the existence of the Christian god, is s/he saying that's the only concept of god there is? I imagine to be an atheist is to denounce the existence of any and every god. But how much do these atheists know about the variety of concepts of god they are denouncing? I venture to say they are just denouncing them out of hand with bugger-all knowledge to back up any argument on the subject.

Yes, I hope I have opened a can of worms. Big fat worms wriggling around in a huge can labelled Theology...

November 26, 2005 3:56 AM  
Blogger Davo said...

If you google "Mithras", "Mithraism", "Attis", "the Golden Bough", "sinterklaas" .. it might help to clarify some of the things that are being discussed here.
Cheers, and have a happy Saturnalia.

November 26, 2005 8:29 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Davo, that is one god myth. As I've said many times in this blog already, I reject the validity of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god myths as being nothing more than the control structures for men dominating society via a myth of punishment and reward. You can almost hear Pavlov's bell ringing when reading the pages of their propaganda.... Mithraism can now be added to that list...

But for an atheist to say there is no god whatsoever s/he must first limit what they mean by god.

And even then I believe there are other definitions/concepts of god which fall outside these limits and which are therefore not invalidated by the "atheist's" selective reasoning when dismissing all concepts of god.

I'm still waiting for one of these "atheists" to come here and give me my come-uppance. And until they do, I'll dismiss them for being just as bigoted as the religious bigots they so like to invalidate.

Anyway, most of this is really about specific issues of moral conflict with the teachings/laws of some religions and it's convenient for the dissenters to call themselves "atheists". But in doing so they themselves become bigots who have dragged god into the political debate by shrieking that He (or She, They, It,) does not exist. And then, quite disingenuously, they shriek at those who wish to disagree with them and shout "you can't bring God into political debate!!!".

It's all just another stunt... A cheap and nasty debating trick... Bigot vs bigot... Logic and reason out to lunch...

November 26, 2005 12:18 PM  
Blogger Davo said...

Gerry, you can bring "god" into politics. "god" is all about politics. Has been built into our psyche since Australopethicus (or whoever) found themselves in an environment which gave them the time to stop worrying about stuffing their bellies and wonder what that bloody great big ball of hot stuff was that came and took away the dark. Then they had to invent some sounds that made sense to each other so that they could 'discuss' it with each other. It all became complicated when they met up with another tribe of Australowhatsits who had a different notion.

November 26, 2005 12:32 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Davo, tell that to the atheists spinning sophistry... :-)

November 26, 2005 12:37 PM  
Blogger Davo said...

"In the beginning was the word and the word was god.."

Damn, that one's only just sprung to mind and I dislike getting involved in discussions like this without looking something up ..oops.

November 26, 2005 12:55 PM  
Blogger JahTeh said...

I believe in re-incarnation so all I need to believe in is me.

November 26, 2005 3:20 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

JahTeh, who or what supervises the details of your reincarnation?

November 26, 2005 3:22 PM  
Blogger JahTeh said...

I do because I'm God. Don't try my patience or I'll take away your commenters licence.

November 26, 2005 3:58 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

So you are God? Well, you can't be brought into politics! And that's that! It upsets atheists!!!

November 26, 2005 4:04 PM  
Blogger Ron said...

God is just dog spelt backwards.

November 26, 2005 5:12 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

So does that mean we can't bring dogs into political debate either?

November 26, 2005 5:49 PM  
Blogger GreenSmile said...

OK Gerry, I submit my collected posts to your judgement: am I one of those arrogant atheists? Or just a bit smug? Whose gonna tell me if not my friends?

November 28, 2005 4:37 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

GreenSmile, you gentle soul, what can I say...

Arrogant? Smug? You'll have to be your own judge...

Follow these steps:

[1] No god? (If you agree, goto [2]

[2] Define god, then goto [3]

[3] Why did you limit your definition of god thus? If you wish to redefine god, goto [2], otherwise, goto [4]

[4] Post your responses to [2] and [3] in the comments here.

Good luck... :-)

November 28, 2005 6:48 AM  
Blogger GreenSmile said...

Please! Help stamp out dylsexia before it has some horrid effect on political discourse.

November 29, 2005 12:36 PM  
Blogger GreenSmile said...

Gerry: being lazy and a bit of a programmer, I coded up your algorithm. A plume of smoke is already starting to curl up out of the box.

Jahteh: you might find God Without Religion interesting...I have not finished reading all the [copiously supplied] reviews.

Davo: You are, IMHO, quite right that the separation of politics and religion is only a modern invention, certainly not universal now and essentialy unknown before the Enlightenment. You may find interesting material if you google "wired for god"...the concept is 10 years old and I will be posting on it when I have finished the skimming ,er the reading. Warning: most of the hits you find are rabid right wing religious rebuttals of the original idea which was proposed by herbert Benson. The Salon review of one of those rebuttals is a readable intro to the topic. An overview article provides other names to search for. Also interesting: neurotheology

November 29, 2005 1:11 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

GreenSmile, I'm still waiting for your responses to [2] and [3]. Whenever you're ready... :-)

Thanks for your input to this blog. It is much valued. As is everone else's of course. (phew)

November 29, 2005 2:55 PM  
Blogger GreenSmile said...

Gerry:

I don't know if there is a god. That is to say, I believe there is no god but proving the absence of that which cannot be defined is not possible. The only definition that works for me is one that is utterly untestable. The god you can detect is not god. Most of what is passed off as god or the effects thereof is wishful thinking about phenomena that have much more rational explanations or can be shown by fuller consideration of all context to be non-phenomena. But I don't really want to slip off of your question.
[2]God is a shadow, an hallucination, a projection of our own mind onto an uncaring but perfectly rational physical universe. That universe has no hidden dimensions or special physical laws in which a god could hide. Outside of us, there is no god. Inside of us is such a powerful wish not to be alone and such a deep need to live in the parent-child relationship that we will see god in a turnip. Prophets are generally mad but the lucky ones get their ideas taken up , infecting many minds with a meme of communicable mental illness.
[see the "wired for god" references I suggested to Davo]
[3] I have let myself off this hook by my assertion that god would necessarily be undefinable. Necessary for me, at least, because I insist that there is no magic, no supernatural way or place for an intelligence to lodge and yet have interaction with the physical universe we understand. The last hope I had for a real god was an idea my once young son had: neutrino man. A being fashioned all of neutrinos would be physical yet probably undetectable. But the information density required for an omniscient being is vastly greater than any upper bound on the density of neutrinos. What did you expecte me to say? "God is a being of pure spirit"? Like I said, that is all wishful thinking and projection. The limits of the physical universe militate against any supernatural being so the limits inherent in any definition I concoct are moot.

November 30, 2005 7:25 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

GreenSmile, you're saying, if I understand you correctly, that god, by _any_ definition, cannot possibly exist (in the "real" world/universe).

You have proof of this, or is it just an idea you have blind faith in?

If god were "merely" a product of the mind, have you looked at the power of the mind? Could it be the whole freaking universe is a product of the (collective) mind?

I'm led to believe that "reality" is just an agreed-upon concept.

Quantum physics is in a quandry. Apparently every particle in the universe exists either as a solid or a wave-form of energy, dependent entirely upon the method of observation, i.e. the perameters used in observing something determine how it behaves. The observer effect.

But getting back to our little quiz:

If one rejects a particlar definition of god, one still says nothing of the possibility of god(s) defined differently.

If one rejects any and all definitions of god, on what basis does one do so? Is it based on fact or irrefutable proof? I argue that it cannot possibly be. And so this general refutation of the existence of god is based on nothing more than blind faith in the non-existence of god.

Which brings me back to the beginning:

There are only two kinds of people vis-a-vis god:

Those who believe in the existence/non-existence of god (faith-based believers), and those who are questioning these beliefs (sceptics, agnostics).

It is the nature of the beast that all believers have mountains of "evidence" for their faith in their belief. But in this case (the esitence/non-existence of something which someone defines in some way as god), any so-called "evidence" is not even admissible until we define what we actually mean by god.

Hence my cute little algorithm designed to show that, about god, there can be only one "scientific" position, and that is the position of sceptic or agnostic (open mind). All else is "unscientific" close-mindedness of one form or another.

Where is the flaw in my reasoning? :-)

November 30, 2005 9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

==========
<<<<< Home
==========