Atheists: Your Perception of God

[ppp]

The contradiction is that it is not in the pursuit of semantic purity, but rather tied with how we view the world. If culture x sees blue as green i wouldn't alter my view about defines blue. I would just footnote that culture x defines blue differently. This isn't tied to semantic purity, this is tied to how i view and interpret the world.

Blue and green are labels for the experience of objective and measurable phenomena. Even if people who see fewer and more colors than you label those experience differently, all are able to measure the underlying nature of light to determine the precision and accuracy of your perceptions and labels. There is no objective measure for what a god actually is. Unlike blue or green, choosing one's own definition for god is a matter of personal whimsy.

This isn't tied to semantic purity, this is tied to how i view and interpret the world. "refus[ing] to recognize that cultures conception of a god because it would corrupt [my] sense of semantic purity" implies that the categorization is subsequent to wordplay.

There is certainly an element of wordplay. But I would say that it is less wordplay, and more human egoism. The placement of ourselves and our definitions at the center. Arbitrary categories are arbitrary.

 

[Curious George]

Blue and green are labels for the experience of objective and measurable phenomena. Even if people who see fewer and more colors than you label those experience differently, all are able to measure the underlying nature of light to determine the precision and accuracy of your perceptions and labels. There is no objective measure for what a god actually is. Unlike blue or green, choosing one's own definition for god is a matter of personal whimsy.

I would suggest less so than you seem to think. All words, and communications for that matter, are personal and whimsy to some degree, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

There is certainly an element of wordplay. But I would say that it is less wordplay, and more human egoism. The placement of ourselves and our definitions at the center. Arbitrary categories are arbitrary.

I can certainly agree that ego is involved. That doesn't make it wrong or even problematic though. One could really acknowledge that ego is involved with any cognitive activity. That doesn't make all cognitive activities wrong or problematic. With regard to your last statement, I think it is either irrelevant or an attempt to slip away into solipsism. Is this a misinterpretation?

 

[ppp]

I would suggest less so than you seem to think. All words, and communications for that matter, are personal and whimsy to some degree, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

I don't agree. Whim implies that the choice arises from a personal aesthetic or a fanciful urge. Words, assuming one wishes to communicate, cannot be sourced in whim. There is a limited set of words that one can use to communicate any given idea. There is a practical objective anchor for 'blue'. There is no such anchor for 'god'. Yet, you treat it as such.

With regard to your last statement, I think it is either irrelevant or an attempt to slip away into solipsism. Is this a misinterpretation?

Yep.

 

[Curious George]

.


Yep.

Great. Please elaborate on how our innate process to arrange gathered data is arbitrary.

 

[ppp]

Great. Please elaborate on how our innate process to arrange gathered data is arbitrary.

What makes you think we have one process to arrange data?

In any case, I was speaking to the claim that you presented, and why it is flawed. .

Blue and green are labels for the experience of objective and measurable phenomena. Even if people who see fewer and more colors than you label those experience differently, all are able to measure the underlying nature of light to determine the precision and accuracy of your perceptions and labels. There is no objective measure for what a god actually is. Unlike blue or green, choosing one's own definition for god is a matter of personal whimsy.

I don't agree. Whim implies that the choice arises from a personal aesthetic or a fanciful urge. Words, assuming one wishes to communicate, cannot be sourced in whim. There is a limited set of words that one can use to communicate any given idea. There is a practical objective anchor for 'blue'. There is no such anchor for 'god'. Yet, you treat it as such.

 

[Curious George]

I don't agree. Whim implies that the choice arises from a personal aesthetic or a fanciful urge. Words, assuming one wishes to communicate, cannot be sourced in whim.

I disagree here. Our words and communications are most often sourced on whim to one degree or another. The more abstract the word the more so the degree.

There is a limited set of words that one can use to communicate any given idea. There is a practical objective anchor for 'blue'. There is no such anchor for 'god'. Yet, you treat it as such.

The practical objective anchor is light of a specific wavelength, correct? Yet if we do have people who cannot discern green and blue. Without a meaningful way to measure whether some things falls into the "blue" category or not, these people wouldn't agree. Prior to recognizing that light of a particular wavelength emitted a specific color by what objective and practical anchor would we anchor blue? Common agreement? What makes the most sense?

If so, the question then is: can we have a consensus on what a god is or an umbrella term that makes sense?

I think that we already do. I don't think most people have an issue in understanding what others generally mean when they say they believe a god exists or they believe no god exists. These concepts can only make sense if there is a "practical anchor." That there is not an objective anchor may cause some issues but that doesn't mean the category is defunct and everyone's god concept is ill-conceived.

 

[ppp]

I disagree here. Our words and communications are most often sourced on whim to one degree or another. The more abstract the word the more so the degree.

"To one degree or another" is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, to one degree or another the choice of word is a whim. To one degree or another you are a different gender or sexuality than the one you profess. To one degree or another ducks are cows.
It seems to me that you are just filling space with words when you have nothing to say.

The practical objective anchor is light of a specific wavelength, correct? Yet if we do have people who cannot discern green and blue. Without a meaningful way to measure whether some things falls into the "blue" category or not, these people wouldn't agree. Prior to recognizing that light of a particular wavelength emitted a specific color by what objective and practical anchor would we anchor blue? Common agreement? What makes the most sense?

Recognizing the people from place X will identify colors differently from place Y and make accommodations for that in any interactions.

If so, the question then is: can we have a consensus on what a god is or an umbrella term that makes sense?

What on God's Green Earth makes you think that I think there is any need for consensus on what a god is? That is your thing. I treat it as a collection of disparate concepts, because that is what it is.

 

[Lon]

When people of varying religions speak of God, they typically are speaking of their perception of God from their own religious experience unless otherwise specified.

When someone speaks to you of God, what springs to mind?

If you were raised into a religion and now identify with atheism, is it the god of that religion? Is it the God you think the speaker is speaking of?

What God do you default to?

When someone speaks to me of God I first think about the individual that spoke and why God was spoken. I don't default to any God that I am aware of.

 

[Jake1001]

When people of varying religions speak of God, they typically are speaking of their perception of God from their own religious experience unless otherwise specified.

When someone speaks to you of God, what springs to mind?

If you were raised into a religion and now identify with atheism, is it the god of that religion? Is it the God you think the speaker is speaking of?

What God do you default to?

Hey Sal, great to see you in this part of the forum . To answer your question, mine is a no-fault G-d (like the insurance). I was born a Conservo Jew, but I’m now a Reform, Renewal, Recon, Humanist, Atheist Jew. My view of G-d hasn’t changed one iota.

Btw, I love your baby owl avatar .

 

[night912]

Yes. The truth is that most of the people who are "discussing" the subject don't really know what they're talking about. Which is why they don't understand the difference between the cultural/religious theistic artifice, and the actual philosophical content/problem that the artifice is being used to embody, and represent. And as a result, their "discussions" just continue to go round and round and round in pointless circles. Pointless, except for the inevitable ego-stroking involved.

Knowing and understanding that difference is of little importance when compared to knowing and understanding the content/context of the discussion. That combined with ego, is what makes discussions go in circles. So you knowing and understanding the difference between the two is meaningless if you do not know and understand what the is being discussed. And that's when the ego goes in circles in his/her own reality and refuse to see the shared reality of everyone else in the discussion.

Example:
When every participants are discussing about the definition of American Football and the difference between it and European Football, then an ego driven self-proclaim expert "coach" comes in and start explaining why his strategy is the best strategy to winning the Super Bowl. And when others point out that that is not what is being discussed, the ego will just cover up the ears and/or eyes and demand others to explain why his strategy is faulty.

So again, knowing and understanding what is being discussed at hand, is the first and most important thing when entering a discussion.

 

[Audie]

I said I care about what people assert to be true, and why. What I don't care about is the extent to which they "believe in" or "disbelieve in" it. What other people believe or disbelieve has nothing to do with me, or anyone else. for that matter.
But we all know that's just a dishonest ploy. They clearly believe that no gods exist. And it's clearly evident in the reasoning they give to justify their "unbelief". They're just trying to hide from their own double standard by trying to claim they aren't accountable for what they assert (that no gods exist). So they assert it surreptitiously, as the "automatic default truth" to theism.
Of course God is real. That was never in question. The question is real in what ways? As an idea? As a personal experience? As a collective experience? As a physical phenomenon? "Real", how? And "real" to whom? Once you set aside the blinding prejudice, you can actually begin to deal with the real questions involved.

Meaningless semantic niceties as per your
definitions don't constitute a dishonest ploy except on your part, with or without the royal "we" who pretrndvto 'know" this.

Of course God is real to you if you. Your choice to think that way, idle to question it.

But you are just talking about yourself, throughout.