Taken a poll of all the attendees, have you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What makes a deity worthy of worship?
- Thread starter nazz
- Start date
Taken a poll of all the attendees, have you?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Been one, never met anyone who actually believed it was true.
People don't always reveal all their deeper beliefs... ridicule comes to mind as a reason.
I think that in order for this statement to be meaningful, we would first have to establish what it means for something to be "real" to the people you are talking about here. Given the complexity of ontology, I don't think that is something that we should be making assumptions about.
If we can experience and know something in any way, it is real. That which is not "factually real" is extraordinarily influential in the affairs of all humans. The question ought not be "is that real" but "in what way can we experience and know this thing?"
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Then how do you know any of them do? Making things up?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Which is really only a useful comparison if you can look at religious beliefs, people who think gods are factually true and look at convention-going people who think that TV and movies are really documentaries. Which one has a higher percentage in the world? I think we both know the answer to that. And your statement of "how to know this thing" really means nothing because you cannot "know" something that isn't real. You can believe it, you can have faith in it, you cannot know it because knowledge requires some demonstrable basis in reality.
Well, you have your bizarre ontology and I have mine. They're obviously not going to agree with each other, and I don't think me explaining things further is going to take things anywhere. Let's just hope that we both understand that your definition of reality isn't reality, and neither is mine. *shrug*
I don't, but you are making the same pronouncements of facts as you see them that you accuse others of doing. Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
No, I'm saying there isn't any objective evidence, therefore people should not believe until there is. All anyone has to do to prove me wrong is produce objective evidence. Got any? I'm not saying these things are proven wrong, I'm just pointing out that they're not proven right and until they are proven right, people shouldn't believe in them. Not calling a kettle black, just pointing out the facts. Prove me wrong.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
OK, so you've sort of touched on the second question there. I assume from what you've written here that you do find things that are factually real to be inherently more valuable than things that aren't. Am I right in thinking that?
I'd be interested to see what you make of the first question too though.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Yes, things that are factually real are more important than things that are factually unreal, given a choice between the two. Whether or not the unreal is influential doesn't mean that it ought to be influential. If there's something specific that you want me to respond to, please ask.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
What might be an acceptable explanation?
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification. I suspect I'll disagree with you on this, but I'd need to know something else first:
What do you consider to be the requirements for something to be factually real?
Could you expand on your thoughts about this?
It seems a touch odd to me, because this is akin to saying that a hungry person does not deserve to be fed. I doubt you intended the statement to come across in such a cold-hearted fashion, but that is how it struck me.
Well, your comparison does not hold.
A hungry person needs to eat, otherwise she would die. A deity does not need to be worshipped because that would make it dependent on contingencies, against the premise of His perfection.
Now, why would a deity require worship? If He does, then there are good chances that He is not a deity to start with. And therefore not deserving of any worship.
Ciao
- viole