Violent Messiah

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Violent Messiah
What you stated constitutes an argument against religion - not God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God is a construct of religion. When not in the context of a given religion, "God" is an undefined concept. If I argue that all known religion is false, I also argue that all known religious concepts of God are false.

There is deism. God is God. Institutionalized Religion is a human thing.

Lobstrosity

Taking an undefined concept and defining it as itself doesn't really accomplish very much... Your statement is as meaningful as the relation x = x. Ergo, all hail x!

God, written with a capital "G," usually implies the JC diety. If you wish to use it for something else, then please define it so we're all on even ground. At least then we can intelligently discuss what you're talking about.

It's hard to provide an argument against a word that can take any definition someone wants to give it, isn't it? I did the next best thing and provided an argument against the well-defined gods found in religions throughout the world, both past and present. It is not an argument against a nebulous "god" defined simply as "the forces responsible for the creation of the universe" or perhaps "the fundamental laws that govern the behavior of everything within this universe."

At any rate, here's my logic: religions around the world think they understand God, and they go on to provide specific details about him. Even deists are willing to state that god is a "being," to whom they give the specific attribute of human intelligence (or perhaps a reasonable facsimile augmented by a few orders of magnitude), implying that they have some understanding of what was behind creation. I argue that it's clear no human has any clue as to what may created this universe beyond the blind physical laws scientists are currently observing and theorizing. Following this argument, any human concept of God, be it deist or JC or whatever, is nothing more than sheer blind speculation, on par with the speculation that a microscopic chinchilla crapped the universe into existence. If humans know nothing about what God might be, believing in "his" existence is foolhardy...it's not the default position you should take, which would be "I have no idea but let's try to objectively look for some clues that might provide us with the answers we seek."

Conchobar

D and Jobar: You have rules against any words that someone might find offensive. You chastised Mr. Caprini for the use of hypocrites. Where I come from that is pretty minor for an insult. When we insult, we mentiion your heredity, your linear family line, having fecal contents in the cranium, lack of a father's name on your birth certificate, and the mammalian or non-mammalian species of your mother. This "hypocrites" stuff seems rather poffy by comparison.

Instead of stupid can we say, cognitively challenged?

Instead of illogical, can we say "synaptic down reglation in the rational circuits?"

Instead of "ugly" can we say less handsome than Mick Jagger?

Instead of "bullshit", can we say bovine excrement?

Instead of "Bullshitter,' can we say "Gobshite?"

Instead of "crazy" can we say "barmy?"

Instead of "idiot" can we say "gomeral?"

Hope this helps expression but doesn't violate the political corrrectness of the forum.

This post was meant in humour. Please don't overreact.

Conchobar

T. E. Lords

I hope the mods don't fry me on this one, but the theist arguments put forth in this thread, specifically by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas', are possible the most ridiculous, illogical, fallacious, nonsensical arguments I have ever heard.

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that occurs as a response to feelings of affection, arising from kinship, strong personal ties, sexual attraction, common interests or admiration.

Justice is defined by Merriam Webster as the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.

These are concepts. Anyway word that is not defining a specific concrete object is a CONCEPT. They don't need to be proved.

I don't need to do a scientific study on whether there will be Milk (soy milk actually, I am almost a vegan) at the store. If I go and there is good I buy it. If there is no milk I will go to the next store and buy it there.

These arguments are non-sequiturs they are in no way related to a discussion about an abstract idea like God.

Darth Dane

If Love is chemicals that are out of our controls, where is our thoughts? Where do they come from? Does our thoughts come from our brain(physical)? If it comes from our physical brain, it seems we are robots, because we are only thinking, feeling, talking, acting as our brain dictates, this takes effectively care of mrality, because the idea of morality is also a construct of a mind that is bound by physical phenomena.

Where do our thoughts come from?





DD - Love Spliff'

T. E. Lords

In loosely defining love I was not attempting to start a discussion about my definitions validity. I was however trying to illustrate that there is a difference between a word used to represent a feeling or emotion and the concept of a non-corporeal, all knowing being that may or may not exist out side of our space time reality.

An ordinary concept such as love that people deal with on a day to day basis does not need extraordinary proof. An extraordinary concept like god on the other hand does. While we can apply logic and reason to discuss exactly what love is, how it works and the affect it has on our lives there is no need to use that same kind of reasoning to prove it exists.

The same goes for the Milk argument. One might use reason in determining which store to go to in order to purchase a gallon of milk.

I want to buy milk
Milk is not sold at ace hardware
Milk is sold at X Grocery store
I will not go to ace hardware in order to purchase milk
I will go to X grocery store in order to purchase milk

Since I have found that X grocery store usually has milk it is logical to assume it while have it the next time I visit. I do not need to employ the scientific method to prove to myself that milk does in fact exist.

I have friends and people like me, based on their own testimony, there for it is logical to assume that I am a likeable person. It is not illogical for me to peruse friendships with other people. If however I had no friends, had never had friends and nobody I had ever know and described me as a likeable person it might be illogical for me to peruse friendship.

If you would like to discuss “love” feel free to message me on AIM at KbrandwoodK or start another thread. Perhaps the philosophy forum would be appropriate.

Jabu Khan

The bible.

diana

So long as you refrain from labeling a person, you may say whatever you like about his ideas. (But it helps your case if you explain why you think his arguments are ridiculous, of course. Which you did. Saying "That's just stupid" carries no weight.)

d

diana

No.

I take that to mean you already understand where the line is drawn. Good.

d

diana

This is one of the sillier arguments I encounter. I'm surprised at you, SOMMS.

In the case of all of the above--love, justice, math, music, wisdom, language, beauty, and consiousness--we begin with the concept, then label it. Outside of our minds, love, justice, math, music, wisdom, language, beauty and consciousness do not exist.

Do you wish to say the same about God? That he only exists in the minds of believers as a concept we have conveniently labeled?

d