Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is all well trodden stuff.


I think what J and H are getting at, is what's the point in that supposition if you subtract the moral wranglings.


It makes no difference to your life to believe or not to believe does it.

Maybe it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside or something but without an accompanying moral framework or posthumous benefit then really, what's the difference?

-Heinz- Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the wonder is a very valid reason to

> suppose the existence of an all pervasive clever order.


Maybe, if you're the kind of person that wants immediate closure. You can just answer all those questions by simply saying "god did it". Seems like rather simplistic thinking to me, but each to their own.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's difficult to have a serious

> conversation about God if you're defining it

> however you want to define it.


Men have been defining God or Gods in whatever way they wished ever since metaphysics, and one could also argue that among believers of the same faith each and every member of that faith has a slightly or very different understanding of this indeed rather large concept.


I was only trying to reply to the question posted as : "Is there a God" understood as, the belief in the existence of God...Not it motives.

>

> Gods have always been moral arbiters and the

> personification of supernatural or poorly

> understood events.


More accurately Gods have been used by man to justify their moral precepts.

>

> You can't suddenly announce that your definition

> doesn't include morality or human characteristics

> and expect people to understand you.

>

Sorry if you don't...

Jeremy Wrote:

>

> Maybe, if you're the kind of person that wants

> immediate closure. You can just answer all those

> questions by simply saying "god did it". Seems

> like rather simplistic thinking to me, but each to

> their own.


I don't pretend to know any of the answers to "all those questions" (whatever they may be) you are referring to.

This is about the 100th time someone has tried to make the distinction between a belief in god and in religion and about the 100th time I've asked 'what's the point of the former without the latter' and I've yet to have a single answer.


Not a single satisfactory answer, but a single answer.


And once again ignored.


Please....anyone....bueller....

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is about the 100th time someone has tried to

> make the distinction between a belief in god and

> in religion and about the 100th time I've asked

> 'what's the point of the former without the

> latter' and I've yet to have a single answer.

>

> Not a single satisfactory answer, but a single

> answer.

>

> And once again ignored.

>

> Please....anyone....bueller....



dunno but you could make a case that the former is based solely on s personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is a man made construct

"dunno but you could make a case that the former is based solely on s personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is a man made construct"


well obviously they're both man made constructs, i think the difference in your examples is one is a personal viewpoint and the other is esentially someone else's.


And yes I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine.


A number of times people have said that belief in a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of beliefs/'rules'/rituals'.


That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim, but it's really no different to saying 'I believe in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The point is, whilst trying to sound profound, actually basically meaningless.

Are you saying that a belief without the confines and rules of religion has no impact one?s life and is therefore meaningless? Or are you saying religion and a looser set of beliefs are equally meaningless?


El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "dunno but you could make a case that the former

> is based solely on s

> personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is

> a man made construct"

>

> well obviously they're both man made constructs, i

> think the difference in your examples is one is a

> personal viewpoint and the other is esentially

> someone else's.

>

> And yes I get your point, but you seem to be

> missing mine.

>

> A number of times people have said that belief in

> a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't

> necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of

> beliefs/'rules'/rituals'.

>

> That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim,

> but it's really no different to saying 'I believe

> in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The

> point is, whilst trying to sound profound,

> actually basically meaningless.

The first, although I might rephrase that to say "a belief without the confines and rules by which we define 'religion'", is effectively meaningless.


That's not to say it has no effect, that warm fuzzy feeling may be beneficial in the same way that, let's say ooooh, homeopathy can be beneficial.

I'm just saying that if that belief doesn't define for you a mroal structure or ultimate destiny (good or bad) then it's not worth arguing the toss over.


Buddha came to pretty much that conclusion, he finished up saying that religion was hokum and you're better of trying to achieve enlightenment for it's own end, that being inner peace.

Ah I see. Most of the people I know that believe in God without religion do feel it affects the way they live their lives and their perspective on the world. Some believe inherit spirituality is the basis of human altruism and empathy. Any other world view would just be too nihilistic for them.

I hate marmite but that?s just my belief

I have to admit, if there is a creator I'm more inclined to think it'll be more lovecraftian than a fount of altruism.

Something beyond comprehension that the merest hint of which would drive man to madness and despair.

A force for whom we are mere atoms, no more or less significant than ants or sand on a beach or the convection currents in the methane seas of a distant moon or a star crashing into a black hole.


The universe is either chaotic and indifferent or has a very black sense of humour, but I see no evidence of a source of love and goodness. But that's me, all nihilistic and hopeless, it's the marmite that does it.

Humility maybe one answer to your question, though personally I think humility before your fellow man might be preferable to humility before an absentee creator.


I think you need to embrace the warm fuzzy feeling though, whether it's a simple belief or something like the optimism bias surely we all need a bit of irrationality in our lives just to get through the day.

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • where I've got to with left politics is very much not defined by labels - when anyone suggests (for example and without judgement) "a reformist socialist government" - my response now is: "like where? Which country is closest to this ideal and what challenges to they face?"
    • I wonder why they didn’t use Fairfield Halls with 10 times the space
    • Was anyone commenting here actually AT the meeting?  I was.  Yes David Peckham; it WAS busy. I'd estimate about 150 people filling the biggest room at Ruskin House, with some standing at the back.  And the bar was quite separate with no queue and sensible prices the twice I used it.  To Insuflo I'd say that my reading of Zarah Sultana's piece in The New Left Review accurately admitted past (Corbyn) mistakes and sought to lay a better path for the future. Jeremy is respected by millions but has not been as shrewd or tough an operator as I hope she turns out to be. Precisely the progressive point she makes despite the fact some will try to cite it as a split.  I agree The Left has been guilty of in-fighting at the cost of political success in the past, particularly given FPTP, but some of us are incurable idealists who don't just give up and snipe from the sidelines. I remember a meeting at Brixton Town Hall in the 80s where a Labour Party member advised someone from one or other of the fringe Left parties to 'get out of your ideological telephone booth'. Very funny and accurate and I never forgot the expression.  Maybe The Labour Party is the expression of liberal-thinkers who suppress their disagreements in the interest of occasionally forming a UK government, but their current incarnation is giving dangerous concessions to violent Zionists and UK fascists. Some of us have not given up hope and seek to learn from the mistakes of the past with respect to the formation of a new Left party.  The speakers listed on the poster were, I thought, intelligent and eloquent. One was determined, for instance, actually to organise people to confront the racists attacking asylum seekers in Epping and elsewhere. Another informed us about TfL seeking to change the rules to allow the expulsion of about 70 tube staff from the UK for visa-renewal reasons and that she and others are taking action to prevent that happening. Practical interventions in the real world when The Right is on the rise, emboldened by Reform and its desperate manifesto.  Another emphasised the crucial importance of ecological awareness in policy-making, although alliances with the Green Party were a matter of debate.  A youthful presence (the majority present were, like me, grey-haired) was the contributions by members of the latest incarnation of the 'Revolutionary Communist Party'. One by one they did what that party does: stand up and say 'yes we support the apparent aims of 'Your Party' but really the only solution is revolution' (they mean Bolshevik/French style).  This met with little applause, I think because most people present know that that is not going to happen here unless things get an awful lot worse. Realistically a reformist Socialist government is the furthest Left the current British population could ever countenance in my opinion.  So yes; if we let in-fighting be caused by groups who really just wish to push their manifestos at leftie forums we won't even be in a position to 'split The Left' in the way Sephiroth suggests.  I have been a union member for 22 years, helped organise a unique strike of Lambeth College Unison workers in 2016, voted twice for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader, and canvassed for him in 2024 in Islington North. Yes; mostly I've lived under Tory governments and seen the welfare state eroded, but I will always resist cynicism and defeatism.  Last night's meeting reminded me that there are decent people out there willing to try to improve society, rather than accept this Labour government as 'the best we can do'.  Peace and love.   
    • a - you said you were done interacting with me, remember b - " police, judge, jury, prosecution and executioner"  - the not very bright person's response on any public forum when someone point out the idiocy of anything. I haven't prosecuted anyone, executed anyone, or taken part in any trial or jury.    I have judged tho but then so do you and so did the OP - so what? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...