God's purpose

[Navigator]

Now you seem convinced that people are afraid to admit that humans are super special. That's just bizarre. I'm not afraid to admit it. I just think it's wrong. It's not scary, it's silly. I have no reason to say something that I believe is wrong.

I wish you would accept that as the honest motive. Dreaming up other peculiar reasons won't change it.

Edited because I forgot to add: I don't think people need to believe they're special to live up to their potential of goodness. The sense of good and bad, right and wrong, is bred right in to all of us. Theists may say that atheists can have no moral sense if they don't believe in god, but that's similar nonsense. Humans don't need to believe certain things to be good. Thousands of years of living in social groups have taught us, on a genetic level, what play nice means.

Well back aways in the thread you admitted that atheists could be evil and then you complained that I distrusted atheist motives...(I don't trust theist motives either, and for the same reason.) and now you complain that I am saying that humans are 'super special' (which is another misrepresentation of what I have been saying all along.)

I know an you know what it is I have been saying Pup. I find you persistent need to misrepresent what I say and then make an argument based on the strawman created through the misrepresenting to be a poor form of argument and I tire of it. I understand that you are not the only one who does this. I don't understand why hard atheists persist with this kind of tactic other than perhaps it gives them the illusion that they are protecting their "precious'.

*Shrugs* - whatever Pup. I stand with the fact that humans are a different kind of ape. So different that they are really only 'ape' in regard to DNA...and remind you that it was you who brought 'white supremacy' into the argument so you are some kind of hypocrite to complain when I mention Nazis and pretty low to then turn it around and make out like it is me being all paranoid.

You really are one of the 'mean gals' aint'cha....

That reminds me...Emily's Cat...did you reply to my observation that nature has its hierarchies? You know, the bees and etc....

 

[Navigator]

1) I need to learn more about this god, then I'll either become a theist who worships it, or remain an atheist who lacks belief in every god I know of.

Hmmm....so are you saying that all gods are to be worshiped? Is that one of the criteria of 'what a god is' then?

Perhaps atheists should compile some kind of list regarding what a god is, then perhaps less confusion about the whole subject might happen.

 

[ynot]

Well ynot and Pup too. I don't think it is quite as clear cut as that.

I am an atheist about the Abrahamic god in the adult way because I had some degree of indoctrination about him as a child and then rejected him as an adult.

I am an atheist about the Lingbling Islanders god, (thank you Pup), in the baby way because I never heard of him, (I assume it's a him as they all seem to be - gotta keep those women in line ya know), but wouldn't be too bothered to investigate it further. You could say theists are atheists, in the baby way, as far as all the other gods, apart from the one they grovel to.

I still maintain a small degree of reservation about saying, with absolute certainty, there is no supernatural entity. I will say, with absolute certainty, such an entity is not the Abrahamic god however.

I am open to evidence from any source, although I am somewhat tired of the empty, (evidence wise), bleating of Christians and Muslims. Jews don't bother me much as the majority of Jews, (in the sense of race), seem to be non believers, and the other religious ones just smugly sit back, secure in the knowledge that they are the chosen people.

If credible evidence of a god actually existing was ever found I would have to accept it, but I have absolutely no expectation that will ever happen, so the prospect isn't even worthy of any consideration (life's too busy and short as it is). Do you leave yourself open to any possibility and expectation that Santa and The Tooth Fairy are actually real?

 

[Pup]

I favor the Gnostic world view. In the Gnostic view, God is the ultimate consciousness which is beyond all created universes and never really created anything as we understand that process. God emanated, or brought forth from within, the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. According to this view, everything is God because reality is the substance of God. In order to explain imperfection, or a flawed world, just like a document that's been copied one too many times and ends up blurry, pieces of this "essence" have been projected so far from the original source that they've now become corrupted. That's why it's wrong to worship the cosmos, or nature, or any kind of embodied person or creature.

To get back squarely on topic

What would the purpose of such a god be? Why did it bring forth all that from within?

 

[Navigator]

I favor the Gnostic world view. In the Gnostic view, God is the ultimate consciousness which is beyond all created universes and never really created anything as we understand that process. God emanated, or brought forth from within, the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. According to this view, everything is God because reality is the substance of God. In order to explain imperfection, or a flawed world, just like a document that's been copied one too many times and ends up blurry, pieces of this "essence" have been projected so far from the original source that they've now become corrupted. That's why it's wrong to worship the cosmos, or nature, or any kind of embodied person or creature.

as in something along the lines of...corruption is really something which exists because somehow in this process certain aspects of consciousness have been separated from the conscious awareness that they are part of the whole deal?

In not knowing, they are corrupted.

 

[Navigator]

To get back squarely on topic

What would the purpose of such a god be? Why did it bring forth all that from within?

That seems to be a very unusual question for a hard atheist to be asking.


The 'purpose' all depends upon the situation. The situation in this case is this reality in relation to consciousness.

The purpose therefore has something to do with creating the reality and then experiencing that reality.

What is 'the purpose' of a roller-coaster? (in relation to consciousness.)

That's easy enough to answer is it not?

So something is created in order to 'go along for the ride' but more than that in this case.

'The purpose is being defined in relation to human beings - yes that 'special ape' and that reminds me...perhaps it is no accident that Jesus spoke about 'the son of man' - perhaps it is a necessary part of the purpose to behave accordingly...but tell me Pup, what is it to 'behave accordingly' as a 'human being?'

See?

The 'purpose of god' in relation to 'human beings'...it is easy enough to 'see' the 'purpose of god' in relation to other animals (see the theory of evolution for more detail) ..but what of human beings?

 

[Jodie]

To get back squarely on topic

What would the purpose of such a god be? Why did it bring forth all that from within?

I don't think there had to be a purpose.

 

[Jodie]

as in something along the lines of...corruption is really something which exists because somehow in this process certain aspects of consciousness have been separated from the conscious awareness that they are part of the whole deal?

In not knowing, they are corrupted.

Not exactly, we are finite little beings with limited cognitive abilities. There is no way for us to ever "know" the original essence in our current state of being because of this condition. That makes us shabby copies.

Another way to think about it is how our bodies wear out over the course of a life time. We are constantly recreating ourselves as cells die and are developed. Over time the copy of the copy of the copy just stops working and we die. If we are in God's image we are most definitely the corrupted version.

Or you could think of it like cloning. If you cloned the same individual over and over again from each new clone without sourcing from the original organism the corruption as a result causes replicative failure.

 

[Navigator]

I don't think there had to be a purpose.

Yes. I think the concept of purpose is related to the situation. It is just as likely a natural enough impulse to just do what ever it is you can do and go with that...

eta - although I am not completely convinced, Tom Campbell's idea of this fits with what you are saying here.

 

[Navigator]

Not exactly, we are finite little beings with limited cognitive abilities. There is no way for us to ever "know" the original essence in our current state of being because of this condition. That makes us shabby copies.

Of course. But I think also that even that being the case, given the scope, we can be more or less shabby.

We don;t need to know the full details - because indeed - we simply cannot know. But we can surmise to the extent that we are able and come up with a coherent 'answer' in relation to our position as 'little beings with limited cognitive abilities'

Another way to think about it is how our bodies wear out over the course of a life time. We are constantly recreating ourselves as cells die and are developed. Over time the copy of the copy of the copy just stops working and we die. If we are in God's image we are most definitely the corrupted and dumbed down version.

So we then need to think about what it actually means to 'be in gods image' and couple that with what we are able to do within the form we occupy.

The corruption isn't the form or even the fact that the form decays. The corruption is in how we use the form for evil rather than for good.

 

[Jodie]

Evil versus good only exists from our perspective. If there is a being that encompasses everything, which is inclusive of all matter, animate or inanimate and even the dark matter not seen, then that would also include what you define as either good or evil. That concept really wouldn't have any meaning in the grand scheme of things.

Which gets back to that Christian teaching that what you unto the least of these you do unto me. We are all just one big ball of being that keeps expressing itself in a multitude of ways.

 

[Navigator]

Evil versus good only exists from our perspective.

Well be that as it may, these exist. It is part of what you refer to as 'the corruption' and for that, is in the process of being sorted out.

If there is a being that encompasses everything, which is inclusive of all matter, animate or inanimate and even the dark matter not seen, then that would also include what you define as either good or evil. That concept really wouldn't have any meaning in the grand scheme of things.

The 'grand scheme of things' infers purpose. In relation to consciousness in this universe, purpose is evident.
Therefore, in relation to our position, yes. Good and evil are real and that 'the overall being' may not be too concerned, deep down in the rabbit hole where we (it) is presently experiencing stuff, good and evil are relative and part of the process of sorting out purpose in relation to the situation.

Which gets back to that Christian teaching that what you unto the least of these you do unto me. We are all just one big ball of being that keeps expressing itself in a multitude of ways.

Sure. But lets be reasonable. If an evil act was being done to you, would this philosophy still apply?

Would you simply say 'oh well Fair enough!' Or would you balk at the intrusion?

The corruption has gone too far and I would surmise that you would not react as if it were just some incident that happened to a' finite little being with limited cognitive abilities.' I think you would find the assault to be something coming from a finite little being with even more limited cognitive ability than you possess.

Or even from someone who should know better but chooses to be evil.

 

[Pup]

Well back aways in the thread you admitted that atheists could be evil and then you complained that I distrusted atheist motives...(I don't trust theist motives either, and for the same reason.) and now you complain that I am saying that humans are 'super special' (which is another misrepresentation of what I have been saying all along.)

I'm not going to mince words here, because I need to call out a standard debating tactic. It's so blatantly used here that everyone probably already sees it, but in case they don't...

Pretending that one's opponent isn't expressing his or her real opinions is widely used, mostly online since posters are anonymous. One reads it all over the internet: you're a company shill, you've been brainwashed by the government, or in this specific case, you're afraid of admitting that humans are (insert proper word) compared to other apes.

The technique is popular in part because it insults one's opponent by implying they're stating their opinion for unethical or embarrassing reasons: they sold out for money, they're weak-willed and can't think for themselves, or in this particular case, the post explains to the other posters that I or others like me would admit you're right but are too cowardly to overcome the fear and say so.

The second reason it's popular is because it allows the accuser to save face. By spinning his opponents' posts this way, he can maintain that he's obviously right and no thoughtful logical opponent could disagree. The only people who disagree with him are company shills, sheeple or, in this particular case, cowards with emotional problems. (Post #1737 mentions paranoia, post #1627 mentions i was "freaking" that theism would take over my mind, as a couple examples)

It's an obvious debating game, and I have no respect for anyone who uses it. If I agreed with you, I would tell you. The reason I don't say I agree is because, after careful thought backed by the evidence I've provided about how evolution works, I don't agree. I have no fear of becoming a theist or any of the false reasons you guessed.

I stand with the fact that humans are a different kind of ape. So different that they are really only 'ape' in regard to DNA...

Note that I accept you at your word and don't dream up stories about what you're afraid of or why you disagree with me. People can disagree.

and remind you that it was you who brought 'white supremacy' into the argument so you are some kind of hypocrite to complain when I mention Nazis and pretty low to then turn it around and make out like it is me being all paranoid.

Because you seemed to take offense and I was afraid my post about Victorian-era racism had come across wrong, I clarified that I never thought you were a white supremist. I thought that was the good and proper thing to do. Now I find it was yet another example of how mean I am.

There comes a point when a debate is no longer continuing in good faith. We've reached that point, and apparently you think so too, for other reasons.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm surprised that one so intelligent as yourself would say that. Surely you're aware there's plenty of evidence that atheists (even "hard"ones) do sometimes become theists? It's easy. All you have to do is let your emotions override your intellect.

Again I think the point of the argument is that it may not be a conscious choice to "let" this happen.

I should clarify that I am not supporting the argument - I'm not convinced by it myself - but I think I understand the point behind it and I wasn't sure that Pup did, which is why I tried to explain it to him.

My emotions do urge me to believe in God but, knowing what I know, I could not simply decide to do so. If Pup says he could then I believe him, which means the argument fails as there are clearly exceptions to it.

However this is all off topic, so by all means let's drop it.

 

[Navigator]

Evil versus good only exists from our perspective.

Yes. But 'our perspective' is well within the rabbits hole. And even being that this is the case, 'our perspective' is still relevent and we should not - from 'our perspective' presume that 'our perspective' is not relevant to the overall perspective.

If there is a being that encompasses everything, which is inclusive of all matter, animate or inanimate and even the dark matter not seen, then that would also include what you define as either good or evil. That concept really wouldn't have any meaning in the grand scheme of things.

It doesn't actually have any meaning at all in relation to the mindless spasm of explosive psychedelic mind**** vomit called 'the universe' yeah sure! But in relation t 'us' little apes, yep..'it' will always be a *thing* offfering 'good' and 'evil' through our subjective/objective blip-matter...thing is.....

Which gets back to that Christian teaching that what you unto the least of these you do unto me. We are all just one big ball of being that keeps expressing itself in a multitude of ways.

eggzactly.


I think the 'Christians' had some thing there....thing is, sow did the Israelis.

eta...nice to meet you btw....

 

[Thor 2]

To get back squarely on topic

What would the purpose of such a god be? Why did it bring forth all that from within?

Thank you Pup. Let's keep this thing tracking on line.

 

[Thor 2]

If credible evidence of a god actually existing was ever found I would have to accept it, but I have absolutely no expectation that will ever happen, so the prospect isn't even worthy of any consideration (life's too busy and short as it is). Do you leave yourself open to any possibility and expectation that Santa and The Tooth Fairy are actually real?

Yes well that's a vexing question. I do have some evidence that Santa was/is real because I did get presents from him as a kid. Also, I did get some money under my pillow where the tooth used to be, when I was a kid also.

I would have to give more credibility to Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, than I could attribute to Jesus Christ's old man, so I am a bit softer on them.

 

[Thor 2]

That brings up an error in what I wrote. Thanks! I'm not sure what the correction would be, though.

For those who identify as the most common kind of atheist (weak, negative, whatever label you like best), I understand that you lack belief in all the gods you know of. What happens when you're told of a new-to-you god that you know nothing about except the name, like the Lingbling Islanders' god?

First, you wouldn't immediately believe in it, because you know nothing about it. Obviously. But then what? You could say, I lack belief in all the gods I know of so....

1) I need to learn more about this god, then I'll either become a theist who worships it, or remain an atheist who lacks belief in every god I know of.

Or

2) I don't care enough about this god to learn more, but I can still say I lack belief in all the gods I know of, because I definitely don't believe in it.

Or... fill in the blank. What most accurately reflects your position?

What's intriguing is that #2 is so close to the strong atheist view, able to reject belief in a god in advance, without knowing anything about the god. It seems rational to me, because let's get real, what are the odds that this one obscure god worshipped by 200 fisherman and their wives on an obscure island is the real deal, while the Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus are all wrong. Life is too short to study every tiny religion that ever existed.

But if after the first few investigations, one has the confidence to reject gods instantly, what's the difference in strong atheism? Thor2, I know you asked the same thing, and I thought I knew, but now I'm not sure.

Is it this:


How would you find or identify as real that supernatural entity, or does finding it or identifying it not even matter? The Pascal's Wagerers would place great emphasis on finding and worshiping one's best guess at the real god, in case one is right. And if I weren't a strong atheist, I'd probably be checking every little obscure religion to see which impressed me as most apt to be real. But I don't, because I became a strong atheist in part because the gods all seemed repetitive.

You're questions are harder to answer because you seem to be a tad verbose Pup.

Yes I tend to be in the category of 2.

 

[Navigator]

Yes well that's a vexing question. I do have some evidence that Santa was/is real because I did get presents from him as a kid. Also, I did get some money under my pillow where the tooth used to be, when I was a kid also.

I would have to give more credibility to Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, than I could attribute to Jesus Christ's old man, so I am a bit softer on them.

Okay. So what I am hearing from you here Thor 2 is that you equate the abrahamic idea of god as like unto the 'tooth fairy"?

Well done.

So does that answer your question and can the thread be adjourned until further notice?
Or is there something else you would like to say?

 

[Pup]

You're questions are harder to answer because you seem to be a tad verbose Pup.

Sorry! I'll try to keep it shorter.