God & Purpose
Offline So far I've seen a lot of tossing around of assertions by both sides (including myself) of their reasons for believing in x, y, or z. It's all getting pretty boring in a lot of areas since morals can be used to justify absolutely anything.
I just have two questions and I'd like a structured response.
What purpose does your god's existence give me?
(I'm not talking about any context of having respect for something that might have created me, that in of itself is not purpose imo)
Why is that purpose valid above all others?
- Login to post comments
Offline I am simply giving you one of many arguments I have heard in my lifetime in regarding to other gods from my monolithic religious friends.
Tell them to google "religious pluralism".
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:I am simply giving you one of many arguments I have heard in my lifetime in regarding to other gods from my monolithic religious friends.
Tell them to google "religious pluralism".
What for, the bible is the only truth, the only word of god and is the only way to salvation, all other gods are really demons and liars, trying to take you away from the light and from the one true God, the only God. Ciarin, this is what I am talking about, it's all semantics in the end, your statement about stop with the one true god thing,, but the religious mindset can easily go this way by following the scriptures or religious traditions of any religion the adheres to strict doctrine and dogmas.
[Edit: You should have googled religious pluralism yourself, if you would have done so and read the definitions given, example in Wikipedia, wisegeek and a few others, it would have shown you that most christian, jews and muslims don't believe in religious pluralism.)
- Login to post comments
Offline Tell them to google "religious pluralism".
I like "religious zeroism." Religious naughtism?
...
Religious vacuumism?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Ciarin wrote:latincanuck wrote:I am simply giving you one of many arguments I have heard in my lifetime in regarding to other gods from my monolithic religious friends.
Tell them to google "religious pluralism".
What for, the bible is the only truth, the only word of god and is the only way to salvation, all other gods are really demons and liars, trying to take you away from the light and from the one true God, the only God.
Not really. The bible admits there are other gods and tells you not to worship them. Plus I've met christians and jews who are religiously plural.
[Edit: You should have googled religious pluralism yourself,
I THINK I HAVE.
if you would have done so and read the definitions given, example in Wikipedia, wisegeek and a few others, it would have shown you that most christian, jews and muslims don't believe in religious pluralism.)
No shit, sherlock.
- Login to post comments
Offline So far I've seen a lot of tossing around of assertions by both sides (including myself) of their reasons for believing in x, y, or z. It's all getting pretty boring in a lot of areas since morals can be used to justify absolutely anything.
I just have two questions and I'd like a structured response.
What purpose does your god's existence give me?
(I'm not talking about any context of having respect for something that might have created me, that in of itself is not purpose imo)
Why is that purpose valid above all others?
A false sense of security that anyone believing that same myth that because they found comfort and resources and security, that you will too. The reality is that most in our species live below our standards and will never even have what I do, and I am dirt poor.
Purpose is important, but not magical. The theist conflates purpose as being magical, whereas the atheist accepts it for what it is, what gets us by.
Purpose IS only important to time frame. Those quicker to rush humanity of the cliff over "purpose" are self centered gang leaders. While the skeptic is humble in not knowing all the answers, will not use myth to lead others off the cliff.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:Ciarin wrote:latincanuck wrote:I am simply giving you one of many arguments I have heard in my lifetime in regarding to other gods from my monolithic religious friends.
Tell them to google "religious pluralism".
What for, the bible is the only truth, the only word of god and is the only way to salvation, all other gods are really demons and liars, trying to take you away from the light and from the one true God, the only God.
Not really. The bible admits there are other gods and tells you not to worship them. Plus I've met christians and jews who are religiously plural.
Quote:[Edit: You should have googled religious pluralism yourself,
I THINK I HAVE.
Quote:if you would have done so and read the definitions given, example in Wikipedia, wisegeek and a few others, it would have shown you that most christian, jews and muslims don't believe in religious pluralism.)
No shit, sherlock.
So if you know this and know that a good majority of christian, muslims and jews don't subscribe to religious pluralism, why would I tell them to look up religious pluralism when they will reject it anyways? Right because your belief in many gods is correct for you, and since you believe your gods are real and exist, then they should be what? More believable than the abrahamic god, that states that he/it is the one true god and all other gods are false gods or demons?
- Login to post comments
Offline So if you know this and know that a good majority of christian, muslims and jews don't subscribe to religious pluralism, why would I tell them to look up religious pluralism when they will reject it anyways?
Because, maybe they've never heard of the concept. Reading about it might get them to consider another viewpoint.
Right because your belief in many gods is correct for you, and since you believe your gods are real and exist, then they should be what? More believable than the abrahamic god, that states that he/it is the one true god and all other gods are false gods or demons?
Nope. uh...didn't you just read about religious pluralism? Did you pay attention to the part that indicates I don't consider my beliefs to be "more believable" than anyone else's beliefs?
- Login to post comments
Offline More believable, because even though religious pluralism is a nice sounding idea, it forgets the ideologies and dogma of a few monolithic religions, much like the abrahamic religions that basically state that your gods are false gods and demons. Therefore your trying to get them to believe that their dogmatic views regarding their god and the statement in their holy books that their god is the one true god and is the only way to salvation or to heaven, is false and that god may have made many religions to try to save as many as possible and spread the truth about god to all people over the earth. I mean this is what we are talking about here. How can a monolithic religion that makes such a statement regarding it's own god, view your take on gods (and their god) as anything more than you trying to prove your false gods as more believable than theirs (by the way I am using a very born again christian friend, well an ex friend now these day, and using your statement regarding religious pluralism, that was pretty much his response to it. Which was your gods are false and probably demons that are trying to make sure you don't get saved by going against the teaching of god, that there is only one true god and there shall be no other gods before him, your basically now a devil child 
)
Remember ciarin, monolithic religions are built upon the idea that their god is the only one true god and the only one to worship, all others are forbidden and in many cases the followers should be at best ignored, at worst put to death. However growing up in Canada, many people, especially in the larger cities, are well versed in religious pluralism as at least where I have traveled, many religious faiths, ranging from christian to hindu, buddhsm to islam, shinto to pagan and wiccan as well. At least in Toronto for the most part they get along very well here (we do have our religious loonies like any place but they are few and far in between). Most of my friends are made up of atheists, hindus, christians, jews, deists, buddhists and wiccan, we just don't care for the most part, however the hard core crowd does care and these are the arguments that are given to me when they confront me regarding religious tolerance.
In essence, yes the idea of religious pluralism is not to put one god above another, however the concept fails when it run contradictory to a religions dogma or tenets of it's faith and the scriptures of it's god and the statements regarding other gods.
- Login to post comments
No, it kinda isn't. You only think it is because of your mindset. For me and most other polytheists, your god is just another god that may or may not be part of our pantheon.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. How does one take a concept of god and run with it? How exactly are they running with it?
ciarin.com
But it does mean dick in the construct of theology and the discussion of god(s). Because you cannot prove me wrong if I make the simple statement, that in my bible, my god states that he is the one true god, and that ALL other gods are just demons out to make you believe in the wrong god so that you are not saved. They may have been worshiped by people at one point, doesn't mean they were gods, it means they were demons acting like gods so that those people could not see the light and the path to the one true god. Seriously ciarin these are arguments used by many believers in monolithic religions. How can you prove them wrong? I mean with the only evidence required is their holy text, how can you prove your gods right, when in all reality we are arguing about beings that never have any evidence for existence. It's just a game of semantics and he said she said.
I am simply giving you one of many arguments I have heard in my lifetime in regarding to other gods from my monolithic religious friends.
No, they can't justify getting the pile in the first place
Who cares?
You just did it with your "Your God is one of my many Gods" thing
By "run with it" I basically mean that they just make shit up about it, such as it's nature, what it is [such as it's Thor, or Jesus etc...] and it's thoughts/feelings without taking a breath to determine if it makes sense and what supports that idea.
As I have it polytheism is just as valid Cpt, and I'm surprised you don't feel the same. My definition of God is based on a theoretical solution to the problem of identity which is an element of a set with equally defined entities in a variety of physical and dimensional frameworks, as such the proposition of a metaphorical pantheon of capricious and seemingly pathological uber-entities is really quite an insight in my books.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I suppose you could say my god is an existentialist of sorts, having only the purpose itself of existing as opposed to not existing. So its existence isn't really a matter of giving you purpose, existence without purpose is still existence.
Now I wouldn't go as far as to say that purpose is uniquely an aspect of human existence, but it definitely is an aspect of human existence which isn't an essential aspect of existence. (Hmm have I said that well?)
What my god does is give your purpose validity. Because my god is defined in parts of the universe that exist beyond the limits of your self (as you work consciously with it), what is beyond "you", in time and space for example, is more "you" and purpose is a word referring essentially to the momentum that carries one towards the other. Momentum is a vector defining the first you, and God (or gods) can be considered, in a manner of speaking, as the vector space that the momentum is defined within.
So in summary, purpose is part of the definition of the human entity, it has validity within otherwise defined entities which apprise the notion of God (or gods). My god gives your purpose validity.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
We need a rigorous definition of purpose here, because every idea about "purpose of my life" I've seen is nothing more than a goal that people believe some higher being has set for them. If we're going to posit this higher being (and thus what goals he/she has set) without any evidence, how is this any different from just setting our own goals? My purpose in life is what I choose it to be, because I set my own goals.
I think one's "purpose" in life is effectively synonymous with one's goals in life. In this sense, the "purpose of life" could be taken to mean the purpose common to all life, which would be reproduction.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Not quite. If you really know something about God, let's have it. Just let us know how you got that information, and we can square it away. The whole ontology issue won't be a problem anymore, because we'll have a really solid source, and nobody will have to say "I just knows" anymore.
Otherwise, I'm not seeing a compelling argument, here. I have equal reason to believe that my hat creates and sustains life. It's a pretty good hat.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You guys don't provide me with data when I ask for it, so why shouldn't I extend you the same courtesy?
When have you asked me for data? You must know by now that when I cite social studies I do it tongue-in-cheek.
I asked you how you know. That's not quite the same as data, is it? How do you know? If it's a feeling, then we can't very well treat it like it's true or false, because feelings aren't true or false. If it's a source, like a person or a book, then we can see for ourselves where this understanding of God comes from.
I know it probably seems like I'm picking on you, and for that part, I apologize. What I'm actually picking on is the idea, and not you, so if you feel like I'm attacking you personally, I'm not. The idea is that there are certain things we can say whatever we want about, because they're mysteries. No one can tell us we're wrong, because they don't know, either. That's fine, but it gives the impression that if a person isn't wrong, they're right. Of course, that's not true.
So it's not you, Pineapple, it's the idea that we can label mystery any way we like. It's not "trolling" to call you on making an error. I've made several factual errors on this site, and I've been corrected, and we all move on. So when I accuse you of labelling mystery, it's not that I think you're unintelligent or something -- I just think you made a mistake.
Not only that, it's such a harmless mistake, if you think about it. There's no property damage, you don't have to pay a fine, and everyone gets to keep their fingers and toes. May all our mistakes be so benign.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That providing data thing was more a reference to Hamby than, you.
Oh and in a scientific sense, you WERE asking me for data when you asked:
In order for me to know something, I would need data.
Anyway, to stick with the pissy drama queen attitude, my answer [which bears a striking resemblance to others on this site] is that it's so obvious to me based on anecdotes, that data is secondary.
Naturally, I would agree.
Hehe. Right on.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Why, you like me when I'm pissy?
It's none of my business if you're pissy or not. You seemed to be signalling an end to the rational part of the argument, so I figured I would drop it.
Are you actually pissy, or just internet pissy? I wouldn't want to think the internet was making you legitimately upset, because looking at the internet, it just looks like it doesn't care, y'know? I mean, have you seen the comments that people leave on YouTube? The internet isn't Mensa, or a sewing circle. It's more like ... monkeys who are high on some experimental drug that makes them just smart enough to write in broken, racist, abusive, homophobic English. Not like chimps or apes that have been trained in sign language. No. I mean like spider monkeys, or lemurs.
Anyway, YouTube comments are only barely a step up from grunting and throwing feces, so what I'm saying is don't let the internet get you down.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Actually I didn't. And your god is not one of my many gods. I merely pointed out that's just because you think your god exists doesn't necessarily indicate mine don't.
So, like the whole "god creates and sustains life" thing you mentioned earlier. Good job "running with it".
ciarin.com