No and no, elwed.  You might try asking theo, though…

One common sticking point in discussions like this is that believers don’t want leprechauns and unicorns sharing the same definitions or occupying the same logical place in the argument as the “true” God.  It seems to boil down to a matter of size, sort of like in the Ontological Argument:  the “true” God is too big, or too powerful, to be successfully imagined not to exist.

But maybe that’s a bizarre distortion of the believer’s position.  How about it, theo: are you just as certain that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn’t exist as you are that God does exist?  If so, how do you justify your certainty- you presumably haven’t searched the Universe and not seen Her Pinkness everywhere, have you?

zilch:
Gods, demigods, divinely sent or inspired beasts and beings- you may be able to draw neat lines with your fundamentalist ruler, but from my vantage point they all blend together…

DOF:
Like Zilch said, all the myths look pretty much the same.

Now this shows apathy.  You win.  You do “lack belief.”

zilch:
What if you wake up in a vat tomorrow- what does your 100% certainty mean then?

Why aren’t you a solipsist?  Maybe because there are at least a few things you believe in through small reasonable steps of “faith.” Your skepticism has ends only explained by something you took in faith as being true otherwise you would be a solipsist.

DOF:
There’s a particular rock in the middle of a dry creekbed in Utah.  It’s a nondescript rock, about 50cm in diameter, weighing about 9kg, and tan in color.  There are thousands of similar rocks nearby.

How often do you think about that rock?  What distracts you from thinking about it?  Shouldn’t you be thinking about the rock?  Think about the rock!  It’s a divine rock!  You’ll go to hell if you don’t think about that rock!!!

I can’t imagine many of you have much appreciation for art ether?  It’s all just paint on a surface.  There’s really not much difference between Michaelangelo and Jackson Pollock.

The distinctions are always what you make it.  Many religions have many things in common.  In this way they are similar.  All the world’s religions can hardly be likened to one or even a few art movements.  Engineers and scientists are no different than any other profession.  They all sit in desks and push papers from 9-5, go home, eat, watch tv, screw their wives and go to bed.  All of existence is bland if you let it be.

Now this shows apathy.  You win.  You do “lack belief.�?

Hey, we win!  Hooray!  I believe I’ll celebrate!

Why aren’t you a solipsist?

I think everyone should be a solipsist!  I recommend it highly!  We solipsists have more fun than anyone else!

Okay, all (or most, or some) kidding aside- a lot of this discussion is spinning wheels in cyberspace, and perhaps in our brains, but not doing much of anything else, because we have very different notions about the meanings of words.  I have the feeling, theo (please correct me if I’m wrong) that when you say that something is “true” you mean that in the sense that it’s “true” that two plus two equals four.  Do you believe God exists in exactly the same sense as you believe that two plus two equals four?  If you do, then we are going to have problems getting any meaning out of this discussion, because I believe that truth in a circumscribed (let’s ignore Gödel for the moment) system such as mathematics or formal logic is quite a different thing from truth in the real world, which is more like a map or a description.  My belief that there are no unicorns, and no God, is just the best description of the world I have at the moment, where I see no evidence for their existence, and plenty of evidence that people have invented them, so I provisionally include them in my list of imaginary beings and include them out of the real world.

Actually, I’m not so sure about the unicorns- I saw a calendar a couple of years ago with photos of a cute kid with his two horns fused to make one in the middle of his forehead- a mutation, and a pretty convincing unicorn, except that he was a goat.  But with sufficient advances in genetic engineering, who knows what’s possible?  Somehow, however, I don’t think that even very advanced genetic engineering, or even superior alien technology, could put together a God, what with all His omnithises and omnithats.

Somehow, however, I don’t think that even very advanced genetic engineering, or even superior alien technology, could put together a God, what with all His omnithises and omnithats.

But anything advanced enough to manipulate our sensory inputs could convincingly fake one

Theo: “The distinctions are always what you make it...All of existence is bland if you let it be. ”

OK, you’re a postmodernist then, I get it.  Religions do have differences, but particulars, like the specific shape of my divine rock.  It has a little chip on one side and is slightly flattened at one end.  See how it’s SO much better than all the other rocks that don’t have that exact combination of features?  But if you step back twenty feet, good luck picking it out in the streambed.

A painting is an image.  Other than being a real painting, no one claims the painting IS reality.  The claim made for Christianity is that it is an accurate description of reality.  Other religions make the same claim.  Those claims are what’s rock-like, if it makes you feel better. 

I don’t know what ‘knowledge’ is inside your head.  Maybe you know Dog exists in some way that I couldn’t possibly know.  Good on you, then.

zilch:
I have the feeling, theo (please correct me if I’m wrong) that when you say that something is “true�? you mean that in the sense that it’s “true�? that two plus two equals four.  Do you believe God exists in exactly the same sense as you believe that two plus two equals four?  If you do, then we are going to have problems getting any meaning out of this discussion, because I believe that truth in a circumscribed (let’s ignore Gödel for the moment) system such as mathematics or formal logic is quite a different thing from truth in the real world, which is more like a map or a description.  My belief that there are no unicorns, and no God, is just the best description of the world I have at the moment, where I see no evidence for their existence, and plenty of evidence that people have invented them, so I provisionally include them in my list of imaginary beings and include them out of the real world.

This is sufficient.

DOF:
OK, you’re a postmodernist then, I get it.  Religions do have differences, but particulars, like the specific shape of my divine rock.  It has a little chip on one side and is slightly flattened at one end.  See how it’s SO much better than all the other rocks that don’t have that exact combination of features?  But if you step back twenty feet, good luck picking it out in the streambed.

I am an existentialist which is one of the many postmodern philosophies.  Most of you are materialists which is another postmodern view.

A problem I think you are not realizing is that you can’t step twenty feet away from the streambed.  You are buried in the streambed because that is the state of reality.  Your Humean view of objectivity has long since been recognized as obsolete.  You can’t walk outside your house and look inside the front window and hope to see yourself sitting on the couch reading the paper.  Objectivity is active subjectivity as the existentialists determined years ago.  The best you can hope for by walking outside your house and trying to look in is to catch your reflection in the glass showing you to really be outside the house.

To further the degrading example of the streambed, an atheist is apathetic to the various rocks that have buried him/her, a theist asserts one rock to be more valuable than the rest, and the spiritual atheist spends all his/her time kissing the rocks and owning none of them.  The atheist believes we will die in the streambed and that will be the end of rock worries.  The theists believe we will be unburied from the streambed and if our corpse is clutching the right rock there is eternal reward and eternal damnation for those who came up with the wrong rock or no rock at all.  The spiritual atheist, I assume, most likely believes similar to the atheist and that once gone its over or maybe that there is reincarnation of some sort, but either way they’re not into carrying rocks, just marveling at them.  Is that fair?

Missed this.

elwed:
For that matter, do you know of a good reason why one can’t be dismissive of and indifferent to Christian theology, and at the same time be anything but apathetic towards True Believers?

ap·a·thy n.

1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apathy

It looks to me that indifference and dismissiveness defines apathy.  Would you like to redefine apathy?

Theo, you are aware of the difference between denotation and connotation, are you not?

If it helps, I have grown dismissive of your opinions as well as indifferent to them. To say that I’m apathetic towards them doesn’t quite convey the same message, does it?

Speaking for myself, apathy has always carried a stronger and slightly more negative connotation than indifference.

Theo: Oh, right, I forgot.  You’re the one who took his philosophy classes WAY too seriously.

My example was just a way of saying, they’re all made out of sandstone.  Grind them to powder and it’s the same stuff. Your religion could be thought of as a painting if you prefer paintings to rocks, but that doesn’t make it synonymous with reality.

As I once said to a Muslim fellow, “All religions are equally valid to me”.  For a moment he seemed to think it was some kind of new-age warm-fuzzy, until he figured out what I meant.

elwed:
Theo, you are aware of the difference between denotation and connotation, are you not?

If it helps, I have grown dismissive of your opinions as well as indifferent to them. To say that I’m apathetic towards them doesn’t quite convey the same message, does it?

Connotation has no place in rational inquiry.  Connotation exists for enhancing emotional drama.  In rational inquiry connotation must be denoted early on or else the inquiry will be obfuscated by language.  And it’s never fun to bring language philosophers into the picture.

Theo, whatever.

Theo: Connotation has no place in rational inquiry.  Connotation exists for enhancing emotional drama.

Ironically, the exact same could be said about theology.

Theo- Consider Krishna, worshiped by approx 1bn Hindus- approx 16% of the world’s population.  In what way is Hinduism less valid than Christianity.  For every story you can quote re Christs divinity, I am sure a Hindu could quote one about Krishna.  What arguments could you advance that your belief is more valid (please don’t make them here unless anyone knows a Hindu who can quote back).  The only real difference appears to be Christianity has approx twice the number of followers (to which I would say still outnumbered 2:1 by non christians)

We are all athiests, some of us choose to go one god further

Richard Dawkins

PS- Sadie, fancy coming round my place and being wrong?

PPS My little word to be submitted was John79.  Rather boringly this turned out to be ‘So saying, he remained in Galilee’.  I was hoping for something relevant

Sexy Sadie:
Ironically, the exact same could be said about theology.

Except of course in the rational inquiry we just had about theological perspectives.

Last Hussar:
Theo- Consider Krishna, worshiped by approx 1bn Hindus- approx 16% of the world’s population.  In what way is Hinduism less valid than Christianity.

Tell me why I would want to get into this.  My tangent was to make a last attempt at the atheism as religion debate which seems to be finished now.  I’m done.

PS- Sadie, fancy coming round my place and being wrong?

Is that a proposition? Whoops, I’m being horny again. 

Speaking of Krishna (and with George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” firmly entrenched in my head), I have always found Hinduism to be a fascinating religion. It’s a whole helluva lot cooler than Christianity, and the gods/goddesses are so intriguing. I’m sure it’s the hippie in me. I actually flirted with the idea of becoming a Hare Krishna ten years ago, but I ultimately decided against it. Probably a good idea.

Theo: Except of course in the rational inquiry we just had about theological perspectives

Could say, Theo, not necessarily implying that it would be politic to do so.

Sexy Sadie:
Could say, Theo, not necessarily implying that it would be politic to do so.

Sorry, should have caught that particular nuance.

Sadie: … but I ultimately decided against it. Probably a good idea.

The Hare Krishna ‘laws’ were:
1. No meat fish or eggs.
2. No gambling.
3. No illicit sex (outside of marriage).
4. Can’t remember, but it would have been another No … it coulda been No mind altering substances.
I was a straight vegetarian for a most of the 80s.
Women and Gambling were (still are?) my weakness.
Bacon ultimately brought me undone.

Much of what the Krishnas preached/believed was much more logical and easily acceptable than any philosophy, and I use the word loosely, xianity preaches.
‘Philosophy without Religion is speculation; Religion without Philosophy is mere sentimentality’ was one of their favourites.
They put xianity into the second basket.
The thing that was totally illogical to me was the Krishnas’ constant reference to eaters of bovine products coming back in the next life, and the next, etc. as a cow, only to re-experience a thousand deaths which to my mind was illogical.
If re-incarnation exists, the purpose would be to grow through the lives’ experiences to eventually go back to godhead or as the Buddhists say; Nirvana … or something along those lines.
Logically, if a god exists, to give us each but ONE life experience, to make the grade or not, is completely unfair. Even my earthly father has given me many chances. Xianity says we all have but one chance to get ‘there’.
Considering the different societies one can be born into, with family disadvantages many have to endure, it’s a rather elitist club, which therefore has, to my mind, NO logic.
The one thing I did like was the: it matters not which road man takes for all roads lead to me. Very Roman.
Reincarnation is a fairly easy concept to come to terms with, even if it’s just the knowing that we are just recycled dust, cosmically speaking.
The Krishnas as with Buddhism were both spawned from Hinduism much like Catholicism spawned the myriad sects of xianity.
Also, Hinduism has NO sexual hang-ups (although, I’m lead to believe, the people do) as their architecture shows.
Now you know as much as I do. Not much, is it?

Personally, I think it’d be wonderful if reincarnation were a reality. I’ve been told that my past lives included, among others, those of a twelth-century Mongolian warrior, an eighteenth-century French peasant woman, and a sixties hippie (obviously my most recent incarnation). Awesome if it were true!

Elwed:

But anything advanced enough to manipulate our sensory inputs could convincingly fake one [a God]

Morpheus:

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, ... You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. ...

Theo:

This is sufficient.

Do you mean that I’ve sufficiently defined my position, or that you’ve simply had enough?  I hope I haven’t offended you, because I think you are probably a nice guy.  I just happen to disagree with you about this God stuff, but also (and more interestingly for me) about the utility of dialectics to get at useful truths.

A problem I think you are not realizing is that you can’t step twenty feet away from the streambed.  You are buried in the streambed because that is the state of reality.  Your Humean view of objectivity has long since been recognized as obsolete.

We’re all buried in the streambed, theo- theists, atheists, Humeans, and Humans- just humus, temporarily awakened to the dance.  Who can step twenty feet from the streambed?  And what’s obsolete about Humean objectivity?

About the Hare Krishnas- don’t know what they’re up to nowadays, but I knew them in Berkeley in the seventies.  All the men in front, the women behind, singing ecstatically, they were a constant presence on Telegraph Avenue, and seemed to be joyfully expressing love of the world.  Alas, it turns out that they had a disturbing tendency to molest children and cache arms.  Oh well- no one’s perfect.

Whoops, I’m being horny again.

That reminds me- a bit off topic, but did all of you know that Brittany Spears’ hit “Oops, I did it again” is by Louie Armstrong?  I sure didn’t.  Here’s an mp3 of the original 1932 recording.  More to my taste than Brittany’s bubblegum version.

Zilch: We’re all buried in the streambed, theo- theists, atheists, Humeans, and Humans- just humus, temporarily awakened to the dance.  Who can step twenty feet from the streambed?  And what’s obsolete about Humean objectivity?

Oh, Dog, don’t get him started again.  Nice poetic language, though.

LuckyJohn19: Logically, if a god exists, to give us each but ONE life experience, to make the grade or not, is completely unfair…

Exactly. Stephen Bachelor (Buddhism Without Beliefs) says it’s a puzzle to Buddhists and Hindus that Westerners find the doctrine of reincarnation comforting.  The bible sez “It is appointed unto a man once to die, and then the judgment” (Heb. 9:27) And you can go to eternal torment even for having the wrong flavor of Xianity.  Under that doctrine, a few more chances to get it right sounds pretty good.

It’s all ‘angels dancing on the head of a pin’, though - we’re only awakened temporarily to our own dance.

Nice poetic language, though.

Why thank you, DoF.  It don’t mean a thing, if it ain’t got that swing, is my motto.

DoF: Westerners find the doctrine of reincarnation comforting.

Am being picky if I suggest they DON’T - it’s so far from the pinnacle of their belief system?
OR did I misunderstand?

It’s all ‘angels dancing on the head of a pin’, though - we’re only awakened temporarily to our own dance.

It’s all in the way you hold your mouth = The Phantom = oz saying.