So many gods to not believe in

[Silent3]

I try to be an equal opportunity skeptic. I try not to focus my skepticism only on the prevailing belief systems that surround me in the US. I'm fond of describing atheism as "a lack of belief in deities", for example, rather than saying "a lack of belief in God".

These are the kinds of gods I've run into so far, at least those I can think of off the top of my head right now. I have no use for, or reason to believe in, any of them:

1) The black box god, the Creator god who does everything/is the answer to everything that we haven't otherwise figured out for ourselves.
2) The father figure.
3) The mother figure.
4) The amorphous "great spirit" god.
5) The redundant "sum total of everything" god, which usually is more than a sum total of everything anyway, but a package deal with preconceived notions of godhood tacked on.
6) The Cosmic Consciousness god that we're somehow all a part of god.
7) The Arbiter of Ultimate Justice/Source of All Morality god.
8) The "we are all our own god" god.
9) The god that somehow, by its very existence, somehow implies that we also get an afterlife (more package deal thinking).
10) The vague, something really, really important god that you can't actually define but you want me to believe in (or at least accept as possible) simply because part of what makes this god so important is that you can't define what it is, and therefore none of us should refute it because we don't even really know what we're talking about god.
11) The character from some ancient myth or legend god.

Can anyone think of some more gods I haven't listed above that needs some critical consideration and attention?

[rurallib]

1. the god of athletic teams that guide them to victory

with last second touchdowns or three point shots or grand slams.

[Arugula Latte]

15. and the ones that bestow Grammies upon worthy recipients

[islandmkl]

2. how about Eric Clapton, circa 1967?

[david13]

3. The motorcycle god or gods, as the case may be. They

must have regular sacrifices, or your moto wont run, etc.
How about the ski god or gods, or the tree god or gods, that apparently had some beef with Sonny Bono and did him in?
You see you have to be careful with your god, or gods, or they or he or she or it will do you in ...poof... just like that.
Not that I'm superstitious or anything like that.
dc

[lob1]

4. Well, you missed me, but I'll admit I'm only a minor god.

[ZombieHorde]

5. The Japanese emperor god. nt

[rrneck]

6. How about

the excuse to kick the shit out of people and steal their stuff god?

[moriah]

7. How about the "absent parent" god?

You know, the one that created everything but became so utterly bored (or disgusted) with their creation that it stopped paying any attention?

[Silent3]

8. That actually describes Deism pretty well. n/t

[tangent90]

9. I rather like this approach

A quote attributed to Stephen F. Robert sums it up for me: "We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[zipplewrath]

10. A couple

The "human" gods, who forever seem to pop up some place and develop a small group of worshippers. Call 'em "prophet gods".

Of course there is the one that some might suggest to you;

The real God.

[Silent3]

13. If anyone can prove to me that the Real One is out there...

...even give me good reason to make that god seem more likely than not, I'll consider believing in that one. :)

[zipplewrath]

19. I think you misunderstand the process

Generally, it is you that is suppose to figure it out, not have it taught to you.


But all that aside, do consider this. Virtually every culture on earth, in all of history, has come up with these concepts. Even outside of traditional "religious" efforts, the concept of the "supernatural" or "metaphysical" has existed throughout all of history. That's literally billions of people over thousands of centuries. Were they all delusional?

[MineralMan]

23. No, not delusional.

Most people, throughout history, and even including the current era, do not understand very much about this planet and the universe. There are lots of questions that have not changed, like "Why am I here," "what happens when I die, and that sort of thing.

It's not surprising that a thinking species might well invent explanations for what they do not understand. That those explanations have a lot in common is not surprising either, since the questions are the same and require an answer that cannot really be explained.

So, we have the supernatural, and deities to inhabit it and direct things.

That is the common ground through history. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Some humans don't accept this. They don't find the need for supernatural entities to explain difficult concepts. They accept their lack of knowlege and try to figure out as much as they can.

So many religions. So many fairy tales to answer the hard questions.

If you can accept those tales, great. I cannot.

[zipplewrath]

35. So you're sticking with that

You will assume that they all got it wrong, all those years, and you've figured it out.

[MineralMan]

42. Yup. Sticking with it.

You're welcome to do something else, of course.

[Silent3]

47. How is saying, "I don't know, and you don't know either"...

...the equivalent of thinking you've "figured it out"?

Yes, I often hear believers angrily say to atheists and skeptics, "So, smart guy, you think you've got it all figured out, doncha!?"

The only thing atheists and skeptics claim to have figured out, in general, is that their own ignorance is shared by everyone else. It's not that atheists and skeptics claim to have any more answers than anyone else, just that they don't believe the unproven and often mutually contradictory alleged answers provided by superstitious belief.

[zipplewrath]

51. I think I agree

I find the absolutism of some people in their nonbelief to be as unsupportable and indefensible as their polar opposites. If anything, they seem to have some additional logical burden in attempting to "prove a negative". They don't know what it is, but they know it doesn't exist.

[Silent3]

55. You're saying you think you agree, but the words that follow sound like the opposite.

Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot?

Before I'd heard about Russell's Teapot, I had my own version of the same idea: A copy of "Alice in Wonderland" buried deep below the surface of the Moon.

In the strictest, most-rarefied philosophical sense, no one can absolutely, completely, utterly 100% deny the near-infinitesimal possibility that either Russell's Teapot or my lunar-interred Alice in Wonderland exist.

For all practical intents and purposes, however, a positive assertion that neither of these things exist is pretty sensible, hardly a variety of unforgivable absolutism, and not at all equivalent to a strong positive assertion that either or both of these things do exist. To assert the existence of either thing is to make a wild, unsupportable, unjustifiable claim. To completely deny either thing is to merely take an a very, very tiny fraction of a chance and round it down to zero.

When it comes to the various, and typically mutually contradictory, specific deities that many people profess belief in, I feel about those gods pretty much the same way I feel about Russell's Teapot. I don't see how denying belief in them amounts to any sort of terrible "absolutism".

When it comes to more slippery, more vaguely defined gods, my attitude shifts from strong disbelief to strong apathy. These gods, whether they exist or not, are pretty pointless. I also don't think people who try to define their own gods so vaguely are being completely honest. They'll vague things up when trying evade skeptical questions, but then they'll turn around and act as if their god has a whole lot more specific meaning and purpose than the god they present for skeptical scrutiny.

[zipplewrath]

56. #10 was the problem

In the original post, he included this "god",

"10) The vague, something really, really important god that you can't actually define but you want me to believe in (or at least accept as possible) simply because part of what makes this god so important is that you can't define what it is, and therefore none of us should refute it because we don't even really know what we're talking about god."

This is basically a strong claim (in the context it was made) that there is "nothing". That's the absolutism to which I refer. "Not only is everything opined to date wrong, but there is no chance for anyone to every get it right because there is nothing."

Considering the effect on human culture for virtually its entire existence, "apathy" towards the subject seems ill considered.

If nothing else various ideas of karma seems worthy of consideration. Including the version which suggests that future events can impact the present. It's not so wacky an idea that physics rejects it out of hand (it is a regular consideration in quantum physics and has been considered mathematically more than once). Karma tends to be a sort of reverse of this, in which action and result have significant delays, almost as some sort of moral echo.

[Silent3]

58. The apathy isn't toward the subject matter, it's toward vague...

...alleged answers to the subject matter which have little value beyond slippery word play.

In the original post, he included this "god"

He, by the way, is me.

Considering the effect on human culture for virtually its entire existence, "apathy" towards the subject seems ill considered.

I can completely acknowledge the effect of a particular idea on human culture without accepting that the idea is true. I only need to know that some people thought it was true.

The effect on human culture of religious and spiritual ideas is found in the details of supernatural beliefs and the actions they take in response to those beliefs. A nearly featureless god so vague that it can't be denied simply because there's no place to grab a handhold on what this god even is to talk about it clearly is also an inconsequential god.

I can't, in an impractical rarefied philosophic sense, 100% deny god #10 anyway, but suppose I choose to actively believe in god #10.

Now what?

What on earth do I do with that belief? Pray to this incredibly vague thing? Draw a picture of what I think it looks like and build a shrine around it? Use it as an excuse to justify the things I want to do? Worry that it doesn't approve of what I want to do?

That's the absolutism to which I refer. "Not only is everything opined to date wrong, but there is no chance for anyone to every get it right because there is nothing."

Rejection or apathy toward god #10 is NOT an assertion "there is nothing", unless you draw that phrase out a bit longer to say, "there is nothing of value being submitted for consideration".

Suppose you want to know the capital of Assyria. Instead of giving you an answer, I hand you a bag of Scrabble tiles and say, "I don't know, but the answer is in there somewhere". What I'm saying is probably true (I might be wrong if there aren't enough of the right letters in the bag), but it's also utterly useless. That's god #10 for you.

If nothing else various ideas of karma seems worthy of consideration. Including the version which suggests that future events can impact the present. It's not so wacky an idea that physics rejects it out of hand (it is a regular consideration in quantum physics and has been considered mathematically more than once). Karma tends to be a sort of reverse of this, in which action and result have significant delays, almost as some sort of moral echo.

I hope this isn't more "What the bleep do we know?" bastardization of physics and quantum mechanics. There is an enormous gulf between what real science says about the role of an observer in a quantum mechanical system and the enormous, not-at-all-supported-by-evidence leaps of wishful thinking that lead some people to make completely unfounded conclusions about alleged mystical powers of the human mind.

While physics can't totally reject karma "out of hand", it certainly isn't anywhere close to recommending the idea or making it seem at all plausible.

[Silent3]

27. Which assumes there's an "it" to be figured out.

If one views belief in the supernatural as a coping strategy for dealing with the unknown, and considers that there is and has been a whole lot of unknown, there's nothing surprising in the commonplace nature of supernatural and superstitious beliefs.

I don't find the "one million Elvis fans can't be wrong" approach to the argument very helpful or enlightening.

It's also a false argument to offer as the only possibility that people who profess belief in the supernatural are either right, or they are delusional. There are plenty of ways to be wrong without being delusional.

If you think all of these believers in the supernatural are "right" in some way, what exactly are they right about? There's a whole lot of unrelated and even mutually contradictory supernatural belief out there.

[zipplewrath]

36. I'm saying it can be one of two things

There is something, or there is nothing. I take it you're going with the nothing.

[Silent3]

44. That's way too vague.

Of course "there is something". There's plenty of something, many different somethings. There's a lot we don't know about yet in this universe, and maybe a lot we never will. That doesn't mean that everything, or even anything, that people dream up that they label "religious" or "spiritual" correctly fills in the gaps in our knowledge.

[zipplewrath]

50. I agree

But #10 on the list was;

"10) The vague, something really, really important god that you can't actually define but you want me to believe in (or at least accept as possible) simply because part of what makes this god so important is that you can't define what it is, and therefore none of us should refute it because we don't even really know what we're talking about god."


That's kinda what I'm getting at. Rejecting any concept at this level of abstraction seems a bit strong.

[Silent3]

53. From the OP: "I have no use for..."

While the title of this thread is about belief, I headed the list of gods with the words, "These are the kinds of gods I've run into so far, at least those I can think of off the top of my head right now. I have no use for, or reason to believe in, any of them".

Further, to not believe in a thing is not the same as actively asserting that the thing does not exist.

God #10 is in my list not because I can positively assert that no such god exists, but because there's no good reason to believe that god does exist, and there's no use that can be made of believing in that god, since such a belief would carry with it no specific consequences, recommended actions, changes in lifestyle, moral teachings, etc. God #10 is nothing more than a mildly interesting but otherwise useless thought bauble.

Would it be your contention that if any sort of entity fitting the very wide-open and vague parameters of god #10 exists, that somehow all religious and/or spiritual people, no matter what the specifics of their own beliefs, deserve some sort of recognition or credit for being "on to something", for being especially aware or perceptive?

[zipplewrath]

64. Not sure I'd say all

Would it be your contention that if any sort of entity fitting the very wide-open and vague parameters of god #10 exists, that somehow all religious and/or spiritual people, no matter what the specifics of their own beliefs, deserve some sort of recognition or credit for being "on to something", for being especially aware or perceptive?

Not sure I'd use the expression "all", but at some point one must consider that it is themselves that are missing something, not the other 6 billion people of history.

[cosmik debris]

65. argumentum ad populum

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[zipplewrath]

66. Yup

Which isn't exactly what I'm saying. Close, and I understand the danger of the argument. However, we are talking about 10,000 years of history, and billions of people. Furthermore, most of algebra is based upon "postulate" that we accept to be true, without proof, because they are basically obvious to the most casual observer (or professed to be anyway, more than one high school student would like to differ). It would seem at some point, the assertion at least deserve consideration as some sort of axiom or postulate.

[cosmik debris]

67. The number of people and the number of years is irrelevant

It is still a fallacy no matter how many people believe it or for how long. You don't need to keep making that argument since it has no validity.

When you have some evidence to support your axiom then it will deserve consideration.

Is evidence too much to ask?

[zipplewrath]

68. According to some, yes

Alternately, the discussion could start with what should be considered "evidence". Gravity was poorly understood for centuries. The descriptions were frequently demonstrably wrong. Even today, its description is not perfect. I'm willing to accept its potential existence however, until I figure out what it is.

[cosmik debris]

69. So what is the minimum number of people

and the minimum number of years they have to believe in order to overcome the fallacy of the argument. Is 1,000 enough? A million? Where is the line below which the proposal has no validity, but above which the fallacy is overcome?

[zipplewrath]

70. It's a continuous function

It's more like a probability function. Very few things have a probability of zero or one, but there are things that are close. Admittedly, even though they are, that is no guarantee, but as they say, it's the way to bet. You've got several millenia, billions of people, and several hundred cultures. It may not be proof, but it's the way to bet. Your question is how low does the probability have to go before it's a "bad bet". I guess it depends upon how much risk one is willing to take and what potential reward one hopes to gain.

[cosmik debris]

71. I'll bet that they love you in Las Vegas!

Risk and reward do not change probabilities in the least. If you are betting based on risk and reward, you are a casino owner's dream come true.

The only thing that would justify a good bet over a bad bet would be the probability of the outcome meeting your expectations. That probability does not change just because more people believe it for a longer time.

[zipplewrath]

72. No, they do not

And I don't believe I suggested as much. I believe what I suggested was that the decision to bet at all was based upon both the probabilities, and the potential risk with respect to the potential reward.

[cosmik debris]

74. I don't believe that I understand your point. (getting back to the point)

You seem to be saying that there is a relationship between the number of believers and probability of truth. I can't conceive of such a relationship, and I'm pretty sure that there is no such relationship.

So I have to assume that I don't know what you are talking about.

If you have the patience, you may try again, but if you do, please describe the mechanism that drives this relationship. What property or quality is added by larger numbers or longer duration that would change the probability of truth?

[zipplewrath]

75. Probability distribution

You have a large number of independent observations over time and distance. Multiple explanations can explain each and every observation. However, as the number of observations increase, the number of possible explanations decreases. As the number of observations approaches infinity, the number of possible explanations approaches one. Since not all of the observations over history are truly independent, the quantity of truly independent observations is probably well below a billion. Alternately the number of possible explanations probably stands somewhere in the thousands. As more independent observations are made, that number would be expected to be reduced.

Extrapolating this process to its conclusion, the proposition was originally suggested that the "one" answer will be, they were all nuts. All I suggested was that there is another possible answer and it is no more or less likely. To some extent, in an occum's razor sense, betting that such widely dispearsed observations over time and distance are some sort of collective insanity might be a risky strategy. Doesn't of course mean it's wrong.

[cosmik debris]

76. I can't buy that

It assumes that each observer is correct in the observation. It denies any possibility that the observer could be confused or just mistaken.

And it certainly does not reduce the number of possible explanations. Belief or observation does not change the number of possible explanations.

Oh, and here is another monkey wrench. Over the eons the observations have not been consistent. Some observed Zeus, others observed Odin. You can't say that those observations agree. So for every possible god observed, we have even more possible explanations and less consensus.

You cannot extrapolate a general rule from such diverse specifics.

Edit: Prior to the understanding of eclipses there were millions of observations over thousands of years. None of these observations provided credible information on the mechanism of eclipses. And yet you seem to believe that the conclusions of these observations had a high probability of accuracy. That just stumps me.

[zipplewrath]

77. I think the case can be made.

Observations are, by definition, "correct". Of course, there is the problem of the description, or quantification of the observation. Inaccuracies can be introduced at that step.

Confusion or error of a single measurement is a possible explanation for that single measurement. As I suggested, it becomes increasingly difficult to move towards that as the singular explanation. It requires a consistent amount of error, amongst a large number of independent observers over a long period of time. Not impossible but occum's razor would seem to suggest otherwise.

Probably an interesting theology thesis, but I think one could make a case that the number of explanations are decreasing, not increasing. Variations of monotheism (including the form of the mother earth/nature/great spirit/unified conciousness) seem to be common even of relatively new variations. Of course this can be to some extent the decreasing nature of the independence of the observers. But to a certain extent, that is how discovery tends to occur. Independent observers sharing information and moving towards common explanations. Although, yes there are errors introduced in the process. A paper was written a decade or so ago where the historical value of the gravitational constant was plotted. It was a fairly straight line between Galileo's original value, and the modern scientific value. Someone pointed out that if the errors were truly random measurement errors, the values should have been scattered around the "true" value. Instead, when they could find the original raw data, it was obvious that the data reduction was biased towards not deviating too much from the previously established values. But in someways this tends to re-enforce the current discussion. One could make a case that what we are seeing is a "scattering" around a point and we are all moving towards it.

And there is no requirement for the observations to be "consistent". I can observe a wide range of phenomenon, and explain them with a single theory. We have multiple explanations for a unified field theorem, not all of them consistent. I'm not going to use that as a basis for declaring that there is none, nor ever will be, such a theorem. (All though there have been those to suggest as such). Again, the indication that the "truth" is about to be found could be indicated by the reduction in variability of the explanations. We see often in history that many people are very close to some knowledge or truth all at the same time. We tend to pick discoverers who are "first" but often the distance between them and others working the same issue is trivial. Calculus and Evolution both fall into this category. (Darwin was encouraged to hurry up and publish because it was known that a similar work was being created).

[cosmik debris]

79. So the probability of the moon eclipsing the sun was zero

until someone discovered that it wasn't.

Until the end of the Dark Ages there were virtually no correct observations/interpretations of the eclipse.

According to your proposition, the vast number of (incorrect) observations/interpretations of the eclipse would indicate a very high probability that the moon did not eclipse the sun. And yet, we know that it did. Your proposition is disproved by that example. And it is discredited for use with any other example.

The only way that increasing the number of observations can either increase the probability or decrease the possible explanations is if the observations are in concordance with the truth.

Bottom line: vast numbers of people can be wrong. And lots of wrong guesses don't increase the probability that the guess will become right.

[zipplewrath]

80. Not zero

And there were no observations to suggest that it would not. You could postulate as such, and no one would have been able to offer a contrary observation. They could anticipate such an outcome based upon existing observations. Those observations could be the basis for anticipating a future event, even though they were not THE event. Your example is more indicative of the original suggestion of the absence of god. The author is suggesting the absence of something based upon the absence of direct evidence. We as of yet have no single explanation consistent with all of the observations, but that is not proof that it does not exist.

"Bottom line: vast numbers of people can be wrong. And lots of wrong guesses don't increase the probability that the guess will become right."

However, that doesn't address the existence of the observations, merely the interpretation of them. An increasing number of observations tends to reduce the number of possible consistent explanations. As the number of observations approaches infinity, the number of consistent explanations tends to approach one.

[cosmik debris]

81. You're not making sense any more.

You are just repeating the same fallacy.

You can't turn the argumentum ad populum from a fallacy to a probability. And no matter how many observers there are, it is still a fallacy.

[zipplewrath]

82. you're confusing observations with explanations

You are treating the explanations AS the observations. The argument in your fallacy is the explanation, not the observation. The wide distribution of explanations, even if it was an identical explanation would prove nothing. What I suggest is it is the wide distribution of observations that is troubling.

[cosmik debris]

83. You are treating a fallacy as a probability.

A fallacy is invalid. You can't change that by majority vote. You can't use probability to make a fallacy valid. It does not work. It is still a fallacy.

I'm sorry you don't understand that, but regardless of probability, a fallacy is a fallacy.

You can add 2+2 and get 3 a million times, by it is still incorrect. You can do it a billion times over a million years and it is still incorrect.

Like the eclipse example. Prior to the discovery of the solar-centric model of the solar system, none of the observations were correct. There were millions of observations--all wrong. None of those observations individually or as a group changed either the number of possible explanations or the probability that they were correct.

It is my conclusion that you are trying desperately to justify by obfuscation a theory that has no value. A fallacy is a fallacy, not a probability. The reason it is called a fallacy is that it is false--zero probability of validity.

If you want to justify belief in a deity by using a fallacy, that's OK with me, you are not the first. But you have chosen a really bad argument to convince people who understand fallacies. And an even worse argument for people who understand probabilities.

:hi:

[zipplewrath]

87. Do you dispute the observation exists.

Observations are not subject to "logical fallacies". They are not logically based. They are observations and there are no "false" observations. There are erroneous descriptions and understandings of what was observed, but in and of themselves they cannot be dismissed as logical fallacies.

Once the observation is accepted as existing, then the issue becomes one of understanding what was observed. As more and more observations are made, the number of explanations which are logically consistent with them reduces. In the limit (with in the confines of quantum assumptions) there will be roughly one explanation which is logically consistent with all of the observations.

I have attempted to justify nothing other than to dispute #10 on the list.

[cosmik debris]

89. You can not create an exception to argumentum ad populum

based on probability. Fallacies are not probabilistic.

No matter how you twist it, the argumentum ad populum is an invalid argument.

[zipplewrath]

92. I'm not

I would be if I was applying it to the explanations. I am not. I am discussing the instances of observations. Observations are subject to statistical evaluation.

[cosmik debris]

95. statistical evaluation does not create an exception either n/t

[zipplewrath]

96. I'm not declaring an exception

You are. You are attempting to apply the rules of logic to a statistical sample. A statistical sample is subject to the rules of sampling and probability. Observations exist. Multiple observations are subject to statistical evaluation.

[cosmik debris]

97. So you have given up defending your argumentum ad populum?

Or are you trying to convince me that this is not argumentum ad populum?

"Not sure I'd use the expression "all", but at some point one must consider that it is themselves that are missing something, not the other 6 billion people of history."

You won't convince me.

[zipplewrath]

101. You seem to need a personal reference

The quoted item was a suggestion that just because you don't have a personal observation to add to the population, that no one else does.

[cosmik debris]

104. I don't know what that means, but I have lost interest. n/t

[Silent3]

85. If you're going to bring up observation vs. explanation...

...what exactly is the supposed common observation made by religious and/or spiritual people? Is calling what one observes "god" an observation or an explanation?

It seems to me that the only common factor among many very diverse observations by believers is that they've observed something they couldn't understand, and then they leap from that observation into the realm of explanation by invoking a spirit or demon or deity to explain the thing they couldn't understand. Most religious and spiritual explanations are poor explanations, along the lines of "Why does it rain? The Rain God makes it rain." which really answers nothing at all, and leaves you knowing nothing more at all about the nature of rain.

[zipplewrath]

86. You're right

The problem is separating the observation from the explanation. And in these cases, that becomes difficult because the description of the observation, often is done in terms of the explanation. People see something and describe it as "the hand of god" or "a chariot of fire" instead of less judgmental terms. My point is that that have seen, they have perceived, they have felt... something, which qualifies as an observation. To dismiss those observations because of the nature of the description is my issue with #10 on the list. In the very early days, descriptions of celestial events took on very earthly descriptions. They saw "pillars of fire" or "the breath of gods". Horribly nondescriptive in modern terms. But it doesn't mean they didn't see something. People around the world have experienced and seen things, over millenia, which they universally chose to describe in a certain set of vauge similar terms of the supernatural or metaphysical. It suggests there is "something" there, and to dismiss it as some sort of universal, multicultural, multigenerational delusion seems to be contrary to Occum's Razor.

[Silent3]

91. I firmly believe that plenty of people have seen...

...plenty of things they can't explain, that they don't understand. Why would I deny that?

If we're strictly separating observation from explanation, however, the only thing all such observations have in common is the experience of encountering one's own confusion and ignorance. As soon as you try to tie all such observations together with some common mystical something, you're crossing over into explanation.

A person hears thunder. They don't know what it is, where the sound comes from. They ascribe the sound to an angry god.
Another person sees the sun. They don't know what it is. They describe it as a shining chariot driven by a god.

The tendency to ascribe gods to observations which are not otherwise understood is not part of the observation. There is no common perceptual experience here, only a common (and bad) explanatory process. The commonality of the desire to personify unknown agencies to explain poorly understood phenomena is much better explained in terms of a common human psychological process than it is by asserting that these terrible explanations, no matter how far off the mark they are, must point toward a god or other "mystical something" that might be useful for explaining something else.

[zipplewrath]

93. Yes

The hard part here is deciding what body of observations is truly of a common population. Grouping observations in that are not part of that population will give a false sense of magnitude. The problem here of course, again, is one must decide that ALL observations are invalid. Considering the length and breadth of the potential database, that's a heck of a starting assumption.

[Silent3]

98. Which observations are you saying...

...that an atheist is calling invalid?

Yesterday it was sunny in my town. Many people made that observation. I don't discount those observations as invalid.

Some people might have concluded that a god of some sort made the day sunny. That's not an observation, that's an explanatory extrapolation of an observation.

The hard part here is deciding what body of observations is truly of a common population. Grouping observations in that are not part of that population will give a false sense of magnitude.

This sounds perilously close to cherry-picking, as if you're saying, "Well, when you set aside all of the observations that don't indicate the supernatural, then you've got to be impressed with the ones that are left in the "population" that do indicate it."

Yes, when you set aside everything but the data that agrees with what you want to believe, you can get to anything you want to believe.

The problem here of course, again, is one must decide that ALL observations are invalid. Considering the length and breadth of the potential database, that's a heck of a starting assumption.

That's nothing but a straw man. No one is deciding that "all observations are invalid". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. What "potential database" are you talking about?

[zipplewrath]

100. Yes

I am dangerously close to "cherry picking" as you say. My problem with # 10 was despite several millenia of people having observations that lead them to some potentially common conclusions, it effectively dismissed them all. I even asked if that is what was being done and I believe (without review) that I received more than one "yes". None the less, the body of observations to which I refer has never been cataloged. As such, I'm a bit out on a limb suggesting that it is singular in nature. I am potentially grouping relatively unrelated observations into a single population.

[Silent3]

73. Since CD is already addressing "argumentum ad populum"...

...with a lot of the same things I'd say, I'll try not to go over all of the same ground.

You've been posing the issue being discussed in terms of betting on who's right. Let's say I give it to you that the religious/spiritual majority are right about something. What is that something that they're right about? What's the upside of betting right? What's the downside of betting wrong? What course of action in recommended by correctness regarding something so vague that you aren't even sure what it is that you're right about?

[zipplewrath]

78. Interconnection

Ultimately, the overriding common theme is one of interconnection. Although there is also a dominant theme of conciousness to this interconnection. The downside of being wrong is ignorance and all of its normal effects. The recommended course is investigation, query, and pursuit of knowledge.

[Silent3]

84. You're mixing ideas up now

Who says deities have anything to do with "interconnection"? The known laws of physics are enough to provide a certain degree of interconnection, although (despite "What the bleep?" types of overwrought bastardization of real science) it's not necessary the kind of "interconnection" a lot of people might want to believe in.

The downside of being wrong is ignorance and all of its normal effects.

Wrong about what? What is an atheist wrong about that Jews and Wiccans and worshipers of Odin are all right about? What downside does the atheist suffer, what common benefit do the various believers derive? What if the atheist is right? The most all of the believers could be right about at the same time is that there's "something supernatural" "out there", but most of them or all of them have to be pretty far off the mark since their answers are mutually contradictory in most of the particulars.

The recommended course is investigation, query, and pursuit of knowledge.

How do religious and spiritual beliefs amount to "knowledge"? Knowledge about what? How is a Muslim whose religion tells him apostasy should be punished by death involved in "investigation and query" when he has to be afraid of any answer that points anywhere other than his current Islamic faith?

I can study the writings of Tolkien and learn a lot of "knowledge" about Middle Earth. I might even learn something about general human hopes and dreams and fears from the story. But none of that makes Middle Earth a real place.

Atheists can and do study religion. A number of atheists, in fact, have been created by the study of religion -- people who went in believers and came out skeptics. The difference between studying a religion and practicing that religion is like the difference between reading Lord of the Rings as fiction, or reading it as history.

Do you contend that there's some special knowledge that atheists cut themselves off from by not choosing a particular religion and studying that religion as if they believe the teachings of that religion are real?

[zipplewrath]

88. I do

"Who says deities have anything to do with "interconnection"? "

I do. You asked about what I was speaking. My dispute was with #10 on the list. The general class of observations to which I refer is one of interconnection in a metaphysical or supernatural sense. It is common over history and cultures and devolves into various forms of religious or spiritual belief.

[Silent3]

90. If you ascribe interconnectedness to your god...

...then you're no long talking about god #10. Now you've put some hair on your god, so to speak. You have a god that has what should be a testable property. The nature of this interconnectedness should be definable, the consequences of that interconnectedness should be discernible and distinct from conditions that would exist without this god.

Further, if belief in this god has some importance, then atheists should be demonstrably lacking in some way, perhaps lacking in the "interconnectedness" associated with this god. For such a lack to have any significance in relation to the existence of this god, the lack must be discernible from simple psychological phenomena like feelings of fellowship that come from associating with people of like beliefs. A group of people who, for example, share good times together at their The Moon is Made of Green Cheese Club might be happier than a loner who does not belong to their club, but their happiness doesn't at all increase the likeliness that the moon is actually made of green cheese.

[zipplewrath]

94. But I have not

I have not even given it consciousness. Furthermore, my predominate issue with #10 was that in effect tore the skin off, and still wanted to group it in with the other gods. In essence it wanted to suggest that there was nothing else than what we now know.

[Silent3]

99. "Tore the skin off"?

You're getting more incomprehensible the longer this thread goes on. I'm not being facetious, I truly have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

In essence it wanted to suggest that there was nothing else than what we now know.

What I wrote suggests nothing of the sort. There's plenty that we don't know. The vast unknown might even include an entity or two worthy of the term "god", who knows? But I see no use in asserting belief in a vaguely defined god that may or may not occupy the blind spots in human knowledge.

[zipplewrath]

102. A claim for no basis of belief

#10 suggested there was nothing to believe, and could be nothing. That was the origin of my comment. It was in essence expressing a basis for closing ones mind.

[cyborg_jim]

59. Can billions of people be delusional? Yes.

Billions of people coming to similar concepts says nothing about the veracity of the concepts and everything about people.

People are easily and consistently tricked all the time - ask your local magician/con-artist/politician about it.

Really the question I want answered is that if one person can make a human mistake why would you be surprised if most humans made a human mistake? Wouldn't you infact expect it to be the case?

[zipplewrath]

63. Over time and distance

I guess what I am really suggesting is that this is not one particular group of people, nor one culture or phase or time or any other of the various standard groupings we might make. It is virutally EVERY culture, group, collection, and period that has developed these concepts, often without any contact with each other. One guy declares the world is round, ya just figure he's on a bender. Billions of people over tens of thousands of years, one might wanna put a level on the ground and see what they're all talking 'bout.

[cyborg_jim]

103. I understand exactly what you're suggesting

Do you understand what I am saying?

One guy declares the world is round, ya just figure he's on a bender. Billions of people over tens of thousands of years, one might wanna put a level on the ground and see what they're all talking 'bout.

Wait a sec... you're tacitly saying that people could be consistently wrong about the shape of the world and consider the correct answer wrong but that somehow that - loosely consistent god beliefs indicate something about the correctness of that belief?

And you can't see how billions of people can be, have been and will be wrong?

[Uncle Joe]

33. I can't give you proof other than my own gut feeling based on observation

which suggests that we inhabit a universal uterus.

The development of a fetus and the development of our planet; including us hold remarkable similarities based on form and function. From the expansion of the universal/uterus beginning with the Big Bang, to the formation of the barren egg/rocky planets like Earth, to early Earth's relentless bombardment/fertilization from millions of sperm like comets and asteroids bringing life giving compounds, to the ever dividing forms of life continually recycled/reincarnated from the same basic material, to the Dark Matter/placenta which serves to hold everything together as it develops.

I suppose eventually the universe will contract upon itself giving birth, the question is will we be us or something else when that happens?

Maybe that's what Jesus was talking about when he said no one comes to the father except through him, we either expand and evolve or die out as a species only to come back as something else.

[Silent3]

45. It's an interesting idea, but what can you do with it?

Aside from the fact that you can't prove it, what difference does the universal uterus idea make in how you live your life?

It's fun to speculate about different ideas like that, sure. It's possible, for example, that we're all living in a giantic simulation, kind of like a Star Trek holodeck, or that each us are all alone in our own simulation, and all the people around us are just synthetic characters. You have no way to know for sure that I'm real, nor I you.

If you can't prove an idea like that, however, and there's not even anything that makes sense for you to do in response to such an idea even if you assume it's true anyway, the idea isn't really much more than a shiny thought bauble, an intellectual plaything to toss around for a bit, maybe write a story about, but then there's not much more left to do other than put the idea back on the shelf until new evidence or a new analysis comes along that might give the idea renewed value.

[Uncle Joe]

54. That's a good idea, Silent!

I shall write a story.

However, this may a take couple of years to work out, so be patient, but regardless, even if I can't write the story, the idea is on the self and all action must spring from an idea. I don't believe Socrates ever put any of his ideas to paper, but his ideas are valued nonetheless.

As to the purpose, I don't have all the answers yet, however as for a few, maybe society could evolve or unify to a more empathetic, inclusive point of view. An increased respect or connectedness to the Earth and everything of it or for that matter the universe. A holistic vision tying together elements of the world's religions to a sustainable existence, because the only way I see humanity in having a chance to survive long enough to evolve with the ability to eventually spread throughout the universe would be by placing a premium on sustainability. When Jesus said "Eat this bread, it is of my body, drink this wine it is of my blood" was he in fact being literal? Aren't we all of the same body, that being Earth? Was Jesus being an environmentalist?

Speaking of Star Trek, I believe in our space time, the "prime directive" is survival and expansion of the human species cells beyond this one blue marble base of existence.

Again I'm going out on a limb, but I see the long term evolutionary prospects of humanity as being directed toward more energy and less mass. Whether the primary dynamics be long term space adaption, increasing reliance on technology or finite obtainable resources.

Regarding the holodeck idea, what micro/macro observation would suggest such a thing? I'm speaking of general form and function. The other problem with the holodeck concept is there would be no purpose, humanity could just stay in bed and there must be an underlying purpose or there would be no drive to procreate; the very basis of the universal uterus idea.

[laconicsax]

26. Which one is "the real God?"

Marduk, Amaterasu, Enlil, Rudra, Demeter, Odin, Helios, Myesyats, Ra, Teshub, Hephestus, Hanuman, Tian, Sebek, Hermes, Umai, Njord, Al-Uzza, Hazzi, Bishamon, Lakshmi, Vesta, Min, Anubis, Fukurokuju, Mot, Quetzalcoatl, Nut, Tefnut, Nergal, Vajravarahi, Aglaia, The Lu, Hevajra, Balor, Rhiannon, Atlas, Honir, Nusku, Kurukalla, Don, An, Macha, Jurojin, Govannon, Abarta,Hepat, Hahhimas, Apsu, Hyperion, Rhea, Aizen-Myoo, Nephthys, Potrimpo, Mati Syra Zemlya, Eos, Ea, Anu, Men Shen, Ansa, Cybele, Vohu Mano, Lao Jun, Gukurokuju, Yama, Manat, Itchita, The Lah-Dre, Nodens, Ebisu, Jumala, Coeus, Dana, Heimdall, Daksha, Gungnir, Hestia, Jupiter, Mahatala, Kataragama Deviyo, Mitra, Pusan, Perkuno, Epona, Allah (pre-Islam), Ceridwen, Wakahiru-Me, Dumuzi, Forseti, Nammu, Zao Jun, The Gulses, Ahura Mazda, Kwannon, Durga, Inaras, Arianrhod, Lir, Metis, Nga, Ouranos, Cliodhna, Attar, Yuqiang, Reshef, Taranis, Isis, Hannahanna, Teutates, Morrigan, Menulis, Pattini, Mahadevi, The Marutus, Goibhniu, Dylan, Aine, Aphrodite, Coatlicue, Kadaklan, Bragi, Hodr, Izanami, Boru Deak Parudjar, Fjorgyn, Otshirvani, Shamash, Dionysus, Aten, Heruka, Euphrosyne, Adad, Nekhbet, Saturn, Inana, Guanyin, Clotho, Astarte, Inari, Gefion, Yam, Dagda, Shiva, Etain, Wayland, Nechtan, Hera, Men, Bastet, Agni, Svantovit, Aryaman, Poseidon, Hinkon, Hupasiyas, Camulos, Manawydan, Mithra, Hecate, Anat, Tomam, Al-Lat, Surya, Kumarbi, Attis, Taiyi Tianzun, Setesuyara, Tishtrya, Boreas, Aonghus, Shu, Leto, Sif, Santas, Hubal, Anahita, Faunus, Ishtar, Skuld, Veles, Adonis, Atropos, Tapio, Badb, Wadjet, Mandah, Freyr, Nerthus, Dyaus, Asclepius, Athena, Basamum, Amida, Anshar, Sadb, Wadd, Murukan, Kied Kie Jubmel, Uu,Cerdandi, Ereshkigal, Dazhbog, Lelwani, Sin, Ullikummi, Balder, Tsukiyomi, Artemis, Thoth, Tezcatlipoca, Dian Cecht, Utu, Baal, Iskur, Wen Chang, Ame-No-Uzume, Xolotl, The Daevas, Hades, Circe, Telepinu, Thor, Ninlil, Ganesha, Donn, Hachiman, Frigg, Vulcan, Saule, Ec, Nanna, Indra, Nu Gua, Tlaloc, Ninurta, Vidar, Patollo, Madder-Akka, Bhaga, Nemglan, Korrawi, Mnemosyne, Cernunnos, Es, Caer, Grid, Brigid, Perunu, Seth, Cronos, Juno, Lachesis, Tuoni, Tammuz, Khosadam, Prometheus, Persephone, Svarazic, Tyr, Hathor, Cupid, Vishnu, Maat, Moloch, Geb, Ukko, Apollo, Boann, Aglibol, Suku-Na-Bikona, Ruda, Varuna, Ulgan, Dhatr, Brahma, Eros, Anbay, Ninhursaga, Semara, Kishimo-Jin, Ganga, Llyr, Kurunta, Ida-Ten, Benten, Ogma, Freyja, Oceanos, Osiris, Susano-Wo, Horus, Vayu, Kegutsuchi, Vayu, Belenus, Loki, Ki, Nudd, Pan, Aditi, Karttikeya, Thalia, Taru, Minerva, Nasr, Idun, Neptune, Natha, Shou Lao, Gadd, Uke-Mochi, Mars, Leib-Olmai, Lugh, Mac Cecht, Izanagi, The Dagda, Marishi-Ten, Jurojin, Apep, Lei Gong, Khyung-gai, Huitzlopochtli, Eileithya, Taranis,Khnum, Amaethon, Geb, Hotei, Manannan Mac Lir, Prithivi, Shen Nong, Ebisu, El, Bellona, gShen-lha-od-dkar, Batara Kala, Psyche, Venus, Ningal, Urd, Ptah, Zarpanitu, Kuvera, Amon, Num, Searbhan, Shoten, Luonnotar, Neith, Daikoku, Kubaba, Indra, Aegir, Ariniddu, Mimir, Ares, Soma, Shaushka, Lugus, or Janus?

I'd hate to think that you were just arrogantly referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions as though there was no question about the matter.

[zipplewrath]

52. Your job

Don't ask me. You were the one confidently suggesting that there wasn't one in any form including;

"10) The vague, something really, really important god that you can't actually define but you want me to believe in (or at least accept as possible) simply because part of what makes this god so important is that you can't define what it is, and therefore none of us should refute it because we don't even really know what we're talking about god."

[laconicsax]

57. You should figure out who you're talking to before you click 'post message.'

I am DU user laconicsax.
You attributed DU user Silent3's OP to me.
I am not Silent3.

You said, in your response to Silent3's OP, "Of course there is the one that some might suggest to you; The real God."

I then posted a list of gods who people have claimed to be 'the real god' and asked you which one you meant.

Would you like to answer my question?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. I'm Not On That List.

I should be.

:hide:

[ZombieHorde]

39. The OP clearly stated...

"So many gods to not believe in"

Everyone here believes in you, just like the hero in the end of many Disney movies or after school specials.

[YOY]

12. 12) David Hasselhoff.

I've heard he can turn anything into a bean burito just by snapping his fingers.

[Silent3]

14. Demigod stuff at best.

When he can do the entire Taco Bell menu, get back to me.

[YOY]

18. I dare not challenge him.

and neither should you! Have you no fear of him?!?!?

[Silent3]

22. Hi... I'm Silent3's friend.

I'm replying for him. He can't type any more because he's a bean burrito. We're contacting Uri Geller for help.

[Arugula Latte]

17. Behold

[YOY]

20. His power knows no limits...just as his package does not!!!

n/t

[Silent3]

21. Damn, I'd finally purged that from my mind!

Now you bring it back!

[Arugula Latte]

30. heh heh heh

The image of David Hasselhoff's crotch will not be ignored!

[Uncle Joe]

29. That's just a myth but he can turn a bean burrito in to methane if you pull his finger. n/t

[Silent3]

16. Aw, damn. Thread moved.

This was much more fun in GD. :(

[Warpy]

24. The god is love

The nuns managed to kill that one off by the time I was six.

[Laelth]

25. I like how the Romans handled this issue.

They basically operated on a "the more Gods, the merrier" theory. It was a form of comity. "I won't deny the existence or power of your God, if you won't deny the existence or Power of mine." This system worked for them for many centuries.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Silent3]

28. It works as a diplomatic approach, yes.

When it comes to sorting out a clear and consistent world view, or making scientific progress, not so much.

[Laelth]

37. I think getting along with those of differing beliefs is might important.

Evidently, the Romans did too ... until Constantine.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Silent3]

40. I think it's possible to get along, however...

...without complete capitulation to the philosophically weak notion that somehow everyone is right. It's a matter of having the right rules for interaction, and knowing when it's appropriate and when it's not to bring up controversial topics.

In a discussion forum about religion, it's always the right time. :)

[cosmik debris]

31. God is Nature--worship of the process.

Or perhaps the god invoked during sex. Where does he fit in?

[Silent3]

32. The God of Nature is pretty much #5 on my list.

Or perhaps the god invoked during sex. Where does he fit in?

Anywhere you're willing to try, big boy.

[Marrah_G]

38. Ahem-

Invoking gods during sex is fun. I highly recommend it!

I never quite got the point in making sex "bad".

A little clip of a line from our rituals "all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals"

I much prefer that then the more common " Masturbation will lead you to hell" approach!

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. The God That Was Not There

The other day, upon the stair
I met a God that wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today;
Oh! How I wish He'd go away!

[morgan2]

41. Leto the Emporer God?

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. Melange is the spice of life n/t

[emad]

46. Great Architect of the Universe?

?

[Silent3]

48. That god is #1 on the OP list. n/t

[morgan2]

49. no he couldnt see his family members futures...

[Sandrine for you]

60. I very like this post, and you look very used to deal with that question. Suppose now

This kind of God:

I'm talking about a god who somehow can fit your number 5, but with some distinctions. The Nature=God of Spinoza with the philosophy of post humanism. The problem with the Nature-God, you point at it, is that it's a sum. But the fact is that we don't know nature in totality, so that sum is absurd. That's why science and rational-empirical method is progressive. It's a progress...And know, if we take the post-human philosophical view, we can say that human is not the end of the process but a middle term. Some in this view think that human is a middle term of the dialectic between Nature ans God. What it means ?

well this:

God does not exist, but He will exist, God we have to make-It, God is something we have to do, so God is a process who is really actualize at the end (End, in the sens of Aristotle) of Nature. So God is not in the past, He is not in the present (except by some archetypal meaning,projections), but He is in the future. He is our responsibility, our Have-to-do, and the real meaning of our liberty. So now what is History ? History is a process where Nature become God, with some middle terms where human take great part by his techno-scientific ability.

Yeah I know, it's look like Battlestar Galactica, but I'm curious to see you how deal with that.

These considerations come to me in the past when I try to conciliate Spinoza with Hegel.

[Sandrine for you]

62. And also...

In the past, before I become a capitalist, I got a Jung course where I choose the subject of God for my final presentation. And the principal was that:

For Jung, If we look by a real phenomenological neutral point of view, the God is a psychological function of human, and human is a psychological function of God.

[daleo]

61. The suicidal god

Who creates sentient beings who deny its existence, thus easing its pain.