Wasting Time?

[Zzyzx]

If we spend an hour per day worshiping Odin or Quetzalcoatl, that equates to fifteen 24-hour days per year. Would that be wasted time? There are, literally, thousands of 'gods' promoted by religions.

How can it be determined (beyond anyone's opinion) which, if any, of the proposed 'gods' are worthy of our time, effort, and resources?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #40]

Well it's important to sort those who can legitimately force morality on others and those who cannot.

Given the declaration that ethics/morality are a biological function, with the attached view that therefore there is no need of 'a god' - one can say;

"Morality is legitimately forced upon us through nature" because it can do this, and thus does do this.

But it has not been established that nature is NOT the expression of 'a god'.

Therefore, the view;
"there is no need of 'a god'" is not honestly attached to the declaration that "ethics/morality are a biological function" but rather - is an unproven attachment formulated through the lack of belief in gods.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #40]

Well it's important to sort those who can legitimately force morality on others and those who cannot.

Given the declaration that ethics/morality are a biological function, with the attached view that therefore there is no need of 'a god' - one can say;

"Morality is legitimately forced upon us through nature" because it can do this, and thus does do this.

But it has not been established that nature is NOT the expression of 'a god'.

Therefore, the view;
"there is no need of 'a god'" is not honestly attached to the declaration that "ethics/morality are a biological function" but rather - is an unproven attachment formulated through the lack of belief in gods.

I don't necessarily believe morality is a biological function, I just believe it exists because other people see that it exists, and what they see is so similar between people that I can't say nothing is there. Gods, not so much. They are very different.

I don't even think a god needs to exist, to exist, so I'm being hella fair with being willing to be convinced out of my atheism, but still I can't find such a being, even a fictional one.

I also don't agree that one needs a god for morality. I think it's proven every time someone is moral and believes in no god. It's proven by animals that go by certain rules and catch cheaters. Penguins defend the rightful parent from having their egg stolen. Unless of course, the penguins are doing it because god told them egg-stealing was bad.

In another thread Diogenes is talking about what it means to be a society and what it means to have a social compact and what it means to cheat against that. You don't need a god to assess these things.

What we do, in most societies, is agree to a social compact. We implicitly make a deal: If we want the benefit of association, we agree to cooperate to some extent. What criminals and cheaters do, is to accept the benefits of association, of living together in this country, then despise the rules of decent conduct and steal from each other and cheat. You don't want to follow the rules, but you want 'in,' you're a cheater. We can't even have good and fair competition without rules. We only have chaos and disease.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #42]

I also don't agree that one needs a god for morality. I think it's proven every time someone is moral and believes in no god. It's proven by animals that go by certain rules and catch cheaters. Penguins defend the rightful parent from having their egg stolen. Unless of course, the penguins are doing it because god told them egg-stealing was bad.

My observation is that there is no need for distinction between a natural thing and an expression of a God.

The idea that "God told them egg-stealing was bad" [as per penguins] does not require the distinction between a natural thing and an expression of a God.

Same applies to all things.

Therefore, on the theory that The Source Seed germinated into this ongoing unfolding object we call the Universe [nature] "God told" is an expression and "So it was" is the result of the expression...everything within The Source Seed/The Seed of Origin - including morals - became an expression of a God through the objects formed, through the germination of said Seed.

So why you do not agree that one needs a god for morality, gets down to what your world view is and that view apparently separates nature from the expressed actions of a God, without providing any reasonable account for why the separation has to be.

I think it's proven every time someone is moral and believes in no god.

This is the same re your penguins. Just because a penguin believes in no god - does not mean that their morality is not sourced as being the product of an expression of a god.

Therefore, it is not proven every time someone is moral and believes in no god

[Purple Knight]

The idea that "God told them egg-stealing was bad" [as per penguins] does not require the distinction between a natural thing and an expression of a God.

I basically agree with you but I personally feel the need for the distinction in a world where a huge chunk of people believe God is not only conscious, he's specifically an old bearded human who hates gays.

It's not about William's understanding of a god, with which I do not have too much of a problem; it's about what people might easily think I mean.

[William]

The idea that "God told them egg-stealing was bad" [as per penguins] does not require the distinction between a natural thing and an expression of a God.

I basically agree with you but I personally feel the need for the distinction in a world where a huge chunk of people believe God is not only conscious, he's specifically an old bearded human who hates gays.

Where is the wisdom in arguing for or against, from that premise? It that all theism is to you?

It's not about William's understanding of a god, with which I do not have too much of a problem; it's about what people might easily think I mean.

We all have that burden. What we express and what others may think we mean. how what is expressed is interpreted. If homosexuality and other so-called atrocities were not found anywhere else in nature, one might have a moral argument for hating gays.

Otherwise, the expression is not based upon morals but upon misinterpretation of nature as an expression of a god.

While there is a branch of theism which fights to keep god separate from nature, there are no reasonable grounds for having to do so.

[Purple Knight]

I basically agree with you but I personally feel the need for the distinction in a world where a huge chunk of people believe God is not only conscious, he's specifically an old bearded human who hates gays.

Where is the wisdom in arguing for or against, from that premise? It that all theism is to you?

That's what theism is for me when I say I'm an atheist. If the neutral position where you basically define Nature as God is theism for you, then we're not disagreeing on anything but terms.

What I am saying is incredibly unlikely to exist and probably doesn't exist is some conscious entity like the one in the Bible.

What I am saying definitely doesn't exist is such an entity (real or fictional) that can help me be good.

Your seed and your germination and your natural world are not what I disagree with. I just don't call them God, because I don't see any evidence that they represent a conscious entity at all, let alone one anything like the one in the Bible, or like the Greek pantheon, or the Norse pantheon, or anything people usually describe as a god.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #46]

Your seed and your germination and your natural world are not what I disagree with. I just don't call them God, because I don't see any evidence that they represent a conscious entity at all

Yet clearly consciousness is part of what was expressed through the germination, so why are you unable to agree that the seed held everything that is [including consciousness] prior to it germinating and expressing itself as everything the Universe/nature is?

Surely you are not suggesting that nature is a mindless process, when clearly mind is evident.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #46]

Your seed and your germination and your natural world are not what I disagree with. I just don't call them God, because I don't see any evidence that they represent a conscious entity at all

Yet clearly consciousness is part of what was expressed through the germination, so why are you unable to agree that the seed held everything that is [including consciousness] prior to it germinating and expressing itself as everything the Universe/nature is?

Because I wasn't conscious before I was born, neither were you, and the universe still held all the stuff to make us at that time. That stuff wasn't conscious until it was conscious. That's like saying photosynthesis proceeds inside a seed because it has the blueprint.

Now, the universe might be conscious, I don't know that it's not, I even acknowledge I sometimes wonder if it is conscious, that's just not what I mean at all when I say there's no God. I'm conscious, but if my cells are also conscious, they shouldn't be worshiping me and thinking I have any power over what is good, what is evil, and what is or is not considered wrong when they do it to eachother.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #48]

Because I wasn't conscious before I was born, neither were you, and the universe still held all the stuff to make us at that time.

Where did the universe 'hold that stuff' if it were not held within the seed which - together with the egg - created our bodies?

And are our bodies not part of the universe, as too the seed and the egg?

We were not conscious of being a human for a time, but this does not mean that consciousness wasn't there. It could also mean that we were not consciously aware of it during those initial event-strings happening during the shaping of our bodies.

For that matter, we cannot even say that we did not exist as consciousness prior to our experiencing being human.

So what you are referring to is a period where we were not conscious of being human and that period allowed for for us to experience a beginning - in this case the beginning of being human.

That stuff wasn't conscious until it was conscious. That's like saying photosynthesis proceeds inside a seed because it has the blueprint.

Seeds are evidence that something large can derive from something tiny.

The suns light is a form of seeding and what is seeded is information.

Be they seeds or suns, or be it that suns are seeds, it is all part of the universe, and everything that we acknowledge as the universe, came from a tiny seed. What is revealed in that process, is a repetitive set of events, all coping the original because all is of the original.

The coding repeats itself.

Now, the universe might be conscious, I don't know that it's not, I even acknowledge I sometimes wonder if it is conscious, that's just not what I mean at all when I say there's no God.

I accept your personal testimony here, but it does vary from other atheist testimonies.

I'm conscious, but if my cells are also conscious, they shouldn't be worshiping me and thinking I have any power over what is good, what is evil, and what is or is not considered wrong when they do it to each other.

Is that how you define a god?

I do have to wonder if your defining yourself 'atheist' is accurate as it appears you are defining 'god' based roughly upon the beliefs of a branch of theism rather than on theism itself.

It appears to be a common enough mistake.

Yet, since Theism as a whole, does not define god in such terms, I cannot see how it is correct and appropriate to go around calling oneself 'atheist'.

For example - your "hating gays" comment is no reason to call yourself an atheist, since not all theists hate gays .

I would suppose there will be some atheist's who hate gays, and this would not signify that atheism is a gay-hating position

Humans have been finding ways to connect with the consciousness/mind behind this universes existence, since they first started becoming conscious of it, through their experiences.

Now, the universe might be conscious, I don't know that it's not, I even acknowledge I sometimes wonder if it is conscious, that's just not what I mean at all when I say there's no God.

This is how theism became a thing. That is the definition of being theist. It is my understanding that if the universe is conscious, then it must be a god.

I say the same for the Sun or the Earth or Saturn...

Even of humans.

Anything really, which is of a conscious universe, must be of a god.

[Purple Knight]

For that matter, we cannot even say that we did not exist as consciousness prior to our experiencing being human.

We can't say we didn't, but we can't say we did either. My consciousness, my continuous consciousness, that identifies me as me, did not exist before I was born. Some other consciousness might have, fine.

This is why I say Roy is a separate person, with his own rights, separate from the rights of the person playing him.

The suns light is a form of seeding and what is seeded is information.

Information does not equal the process actually proceeding. The seed has all the information in the universe. The seed has the blueprint for everything, including photosynthesis. That doesn't mean photosynthesis is occurring inside the seed, right now. That's a meaningful difference between a process, like consciousness, and mere information.

I'm conscious, but if my cells are also conscious, they shouldn't be worshiping me and thinking I have any power over what is good, what is evil, and what is or is not considered wrong when they do it to each other.

Is that how you define a god?

Yes, a god has something to do with morality. Nobody in Star Trek finds Q and falls to their knees to worship it simply because it is very powerful. And this is not because the Star Trek universe is filled with a bunch of vain materialists, since I wager you wouldn't fall to your knees and worship Q either. It is because, if you have a very powerful being, and it has nothing to do with morality, it is still not God.

I do have to wonder if your defining yourself 'atheist' is accurate as it appears you are defining 'god' based roughly upon the beliefs of a branch of theism rather than on theism itself.

It's because I can't find any god, real or fictional, that I would say has anything to do with morality.

I had no idea when I was a kid that Aslan was supposed to be the Christian God. And if any of this spiritual nonsense happens to turn out to be true (I don't discount it, I just think it's unlikely) I probably contaminated myself with a bunch of suffering and pain because I unwittingly let that thing in, and having once done that, it might now have enough power over me to run my life and punish me for what others did or because my People hurt the Chosen People because it likes to do that.

It appears to be a common enough mistake.

It's not a mistake, particularly if it's common, since that's how definitions come about - through usage.

I try to select definitions that are clear and meaningful and useful not just to me but to others... But... at the end of the day, I can define myself as what I want, why I want, and I'm an atheist because I find no god, real or fictional, that I would say qualifies as god.

You can also define yourself as what you want, why you want. You're basically saying, the universe exists and is conscious. I don't know whether it is conscious or not, but I have no problem with you thinking it is, I have no direct evidence that it isn't, so we're not disagreeing. And you can call yourself a theist for your own reasons and we can just be an atheist and a theist who don't disagree, due to your unusual definition of god.