In Gods We Trust(?)

[Kaelik]

EDIT: Nevermind, it's not worth it.

You could have at least left up what you put down so I could know what type of idiot is claiming that life is somehow spiritual because you don't like the implications of reality.

[Anguirus]

Gods don't exist in the "real world", and yet we have religion. Religion is ultimately born from a confluence of wishful thinking, an ignorance of how the natural world works, and our tendency as a species to organize ourselves in a hierarchical fashion. Forget D&D - religion is the original Magical Tea Party.

People seem to be confused about what is offensive to me about this statement. I don’t care if some one doesn’t believe that gods exist; I’m an atheist myself, my complaint is that this statement characterizes and implicitly defines religion with unneeded vitriol and in a way that has been roundly dismissed by scholars of religion and religiosity since the 1920’s. My two complaints here are that this statement implicitly defines religion as a system of belief and necessarily objectively false. In the first place religion = belief system is such an amazingly ethnocentric and blatantly false ideology that scholars in the 1800’s, before globalization or meaningful cultural self consciousness, were arguing against it. Secondly, the idea that all religions, regardless of their content or claims (or even if they make meaningful or controversial truth claims) are born of ignorance is the sort of cultural chauvinism that bigoted religious groups are accused of as a way of demonstrating science’s superiority.

1) You asked him how he has the authority to speak about religion, then you complained that he was speaking about religion? Really?

I didn’t see him speak about religion what so ever. He spoke about the truth value of a claim held within the belief system of some religious groups but that would be like say because he spoke about uniforms and baseball teams wear uniforms he spoke about baseball.

2) religious ideas, like the idea of god, which is one such religious idea, are subject to critical thinking just like all other ideas. So yes, critical thinking applies to your favorite ideas too.

What exactly is my favorite idea? Where exactly did I suggest that critical thinking wasn’t a good thing? The Invention of World Religions by Tomoko Masuzawa is a book that critically analyzes religion –not to be confused with religious ideas. I very much enjoyed reading it. At no point has anyone here spoken about religion, at the very best they may of spoken about A religion (although, in truth no one has even done that yet).

3) It is not clear that he doesn't know anything about religion and the concept of gods. He has made no statements that would indicate knowledge or lack of knowledge. He's also not acting like an authority, he's acting like someone who knows what is and isn't true, and doesn't bother demonstrating the argument to reach that conclusion, because he assumes it is obvious.

His response to my question completely missed the point. When asked why he was an authority on religion he answered with credentials that, at best, allow him to speak about the truth claims of one specific system of belief that is frequently associated with religion. Clearly, he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about religion or what it is or is not. He should not be defining or describing it.

4) Read what book exactly? Reading a book about religion isn't likely to change his mind, since all the good ones do nothing to dissuade atheism, and a lot to dissuade belief. Cause books about religion usually describe modern knowledge of biology/psychology of religion.

Those aren’t the books that I’ve been exposed to. Those aren’t the books that my professors have been exposed to. Those aren’t the books that are important in the religious studies field. Those books aren’t really even all that important in the field of psychology. Who said I wanted to dissuade atheism?

[Mr. Bane]

I've done some thinking about the topic and decided that if I were going to have Gods in my game they would be very basic.

Kinda like Metropolis' God. FEED FEED FEED. Or maybe the Cthulhu type gods, where they really just don't give a fuck about you. Even the "good guys".

Religion in a game I can be OK with, it provides a valuable counter balance to Arcane Logic or whatever you want to call magic.

But there is no other side to gods. Most games simply make some gods Gods Of Magic, which really doesn't make sense to me.

So Gods? Gone! There's enough for the character to worry about.

[RandomCasualty2]

If your omnipotence allows you to bypass all restrictions - including any you are capable of making - then there is at least one thing you can't do: lock yourself out. If on the other hand you can lock yourself out there is at least one thing you can't do: bypass your own lockout.

Ok well whatever. I mean, it seems just like a lot of word play here and not much of an argument.

This is why I generally frame omnipotence as saying that you're omnipotent within a given reality. You aren't necessarily omnipotent with regards to yourself. The fact of being omnipotent basically means you have to exist on another level. The computer running the simulation isn't directly part of the simulation and doesn't exist in any object form within it. An author is effectively omnipotent and omniscient when he writes a novel in the context of the novel's simulated world.

While total omnipotence is probably impossible, it's actually entirely possible to be omnipotent on level of existence, so long as you exist on a higher one. So a god can be omnipotent over our level of existence.

[Anguirus]

If your omnipotence allows you to bypass all restrictions - including any you are capable of making - then there is at least one thing you can't do: lock yourself out. If on the other hand you can lock yourself out there is at least one thing you can't do: bypass your own lockout.

Ok well whatever. I mean, it seems just like a lot of word play here and not much of an argument.

This is why I generally frame omnipotence as saying that you're omnipotent within a given reality. You aren't necessarily omnipotent with regards to yourself. The fact of being omnipotent basically means you have to exist on another level. The computer running the simulation isn't directly part of the simulation and doesn't exist in any object form within it. An author is effectively omnipotent and omniscient when he writes a novel in the context of the novel's simulated world.

While total omnipotence is probably impossible, it's actually entirely possible to be omnipotent on level of existence, so long as you exist on a higher one. So a god can be omnipotent over our level of existence.

Or we could just say that imposing the limit of logical consistency to omnipotence directly contradicts omnipotence and so, the logical contradiction that arises is not really a problem. I have no problem with some one saying "My God is not constrained by logic, he can contradict himself without contradicting himself because he can do anything."

[Psychic Robot]

You could have at least left up what you put down so I could know what type of idiot is claiming that life is somehow spiritual because you don't like the implications of reality.

You'll understand once you hit adulthood.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that life is "spiritual" based on the "implications of reality." I'm saying that you'll just grow out of your "cold, dispassionate, purely logical" state sooner or later. It's a trend I've noticed with college students. They get their hands on a bit of logic and then they shit all over everyone who believes in illogical things (you know, like child molestation being wrong) and then they grow up.

[Lago PARANOIA]

In the first place religion = belief system is such an amazingly ethnocentric and blatantly false ideology that scholars in the 1800’s, before globalization or meaningful cultural self consciousness, were arguing against it. Secondly, the idea that all religions, regardless of their content or claims (or even if they make meaningful or controversial truth claims) are born of ignorance is the sort of cultural chauvinism that bigoted religious groups are accused of as a way of demonstrating science’s superiority.

In the first place first place, that's a facile claim. If religion is not a system of beliefs, then what the fuck is it?

In the second place second place, every single religion was born out of ignorance, to fleece people, and/or as a parody. You cannot argue with that claim, because it's fucking true.

[Voss]

To give him the benefit of the doubt here, he may be arguing (correctly) that while religions are belief systems, not every belief system is a religion.

[Psychic Robot]

In the second place second place, every single religion was born out of ignorance, to fleece people, and/or as a parody. You cannot argue with that claim, because it's fucking true.

That presupposes that deities don't exist. And while there is no proof of any deity existing, if any deity were to exist, it would invalidate this claim.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Can we go back to talking about using gods in a fantasy setting and not in real life? Cause I'd rather hear tirades about that stuff in MPSIMS, not here.

[Kaelik]

You could have at least left up what you put down so I could know what type of idiot is claiming that life is somehow spiritual because you don't like the implications of reality.

You'll understand once you hit adulthood.

EDIT: And I'm not saying that life is "spiritual" based on the "implications of reality." I'm saying that you'll just grow out of your "cold, dispassionate, purely logical" state sooner or later. It's a trend I've noticed with college students. They get their hands on a bit of logic and then they shit all over everyone who believes in illogical things (you know, like child molestation being wrong) and then they grow up.

So in other words, "You are a college student, your argument is therefore automatically invalid." Wonderful. Now I know what kind of retard you are. Thanks a bunch. I won't bother to point out your inaccuracies, since I would be wrong in those two, being a college student and all.

[Psychic Robot]

I also happen to be a college student; your strawman falls flat.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Is there a Godwin's Law for pedophilia?

[Psychic Robot]

There really should be. Anyway, back to the D&D discussion:

Should deities be known or unknown? I think they should be unknown. The clerics draw power from a supernatural force, but nobody knows what that force is.

[Anguirus]

In the first place religion = belief system is such an amazingly ethnocentric and blatantly false ideology that scholars in the 1800’s, before globalization or meaningful cultural self consciousness, were arguing against it. Secondly, the idea that all religions, regardless of their content or claims (or even if they make meaningful or controversial truth claims) are born of ignorance is the sort of cultural chauvinism that bigoted religious groups are accused of as a way of demonstrating science’s superiority.

In the first place first place, that's a facile claim. If religion is not a system of beliefs, then what the fuck is it?

In the second place second place, every single religion was born out of ignorance, to fleece people, and/or as a parody. You cannot argue with that claim, because it's fucking true.

1.) Depends on who you're asking. We don't have a standard academic definition just yet. Scholars do agree, however, that belief system and religion are not the same thing. I argue that religion is a discrete experiential category unique and discernible from 'mundane' experience that is frequently, but not necessarily, expressed through belief systems (often these belief systems reinforce the experiential states which spawned them), ritual performance, and by cultural or historical modes. Even scholars that do construct religion as necessarily predicated on belief systems have more criteria than 'is a belief system'.

2.) Good to see that you have a comprehensive understanding of every religion ever. I'm curious as to what methodologies you've chosen to use.

[Kaelik]

I also happen to be a college student; your strawman falls flat.

So you didn't just claim that I am wrong because of reasons other then my argument, that I would see how obviously wrong I am when I get older, because logic is new to me?

Oh wait, you did claim that. Congratulations on your fail sandwich.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1.) Depends on who you're asking. We don't have a standard academic definition just yet. Scholars do agree, however, that belief system and religion are not the same thing. I argue that religion is a discrete experiential category unique and discernible from 'mundane' experience that is frequently, but not necessarily, expressed through belief systems (often these belief systems reinforce the experiential states which spawned them), ritual performance, and by cultural or historical modes. Even scholars that do construct religion as necessarily predicated on belief systems have more criteria than 'is a belief system'.

My very limited experience is that social scientists tend to speak of "religiosity" or religiousness as participation in a social system (organized religion), as opposed to "spirituality". That may not be the most sensible way to do it, but it is convention.

[Psychic Robot]

So you didn't just claim that I am wrong because of reasons other then my argument, that I would see how obviously wrong I am when I get older, because logic is new to me?

Oh wait, you did claim that. Congratulations on your fail sandwich.

I believe the term we use for this is "moving the goalposts."

[Lago PARANOIA]

1.) Depends on who you're asking. We don't have a standard academic definition just yet.

lol what? Yes we do, you just don't like the standard definition for some reason so you're intentionally pretending that it's in dispute so the ugly truths don't become evident.

Even scholars that do construct religion as necessarily predicated on belief systems have more criteria than 'is a belief system'.

CG answered it pretty well, but I would just like to add that saying that religion is more than a belief system is getting the cart 'before the horse. A religion starts as a belief system but then gets codified by some sort of social experience. Because it's a social experience it invariably gets saddled with some other feature that really distinguish it from more benign forms of belief systems, but that's how they all start.

2.) Good to see that you have a comprehensive understanding of every religion ever. I'm curious as to what methodologies you've chosen to use.

1) Look, it's part of what makes a religion a religion. It's like me saying that every tabletop RPG so far was born out of a need to fantasize. It's frankly a vacuous truth at best and I don't see what's so objectionable about it.

2) If you can post me something that qualifies as a religion that does not have one of those three motives I described, I'll be much obliged.

[MartinHarper]

If you can post me something that qualifies as a religion that does not have one of those three motives I described, I'll be much obliged.

I'd be interested to hear which of the motives you ascribe to Buddhism, and on what evidence. I'm hoping that, like science, it was born out of ignorance.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If you can post me something that qualifies as a religion that does not have one of those three motives I described, I'll be much obliged.

I'd be interested to hear which of the motives you ascribe to Buddhism, and on what evidence. I'm hoping that, like science, it was born out of ignorance.

Buddhism as it is currently practiced certainly involves fleecing the people: donations are encouraged, and will improve your karma. Sometimes magic rituals are needed to cast out badness, and of course you'll have to pay for those too.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the religion was formed with that as its purpose. It's just that if you give the right people enough mysticism, they'll take advantage of it. 'Beggar religions' do generally make some degree of fleecing unavoidable.

[Kaelik]

I believe the term we use for this is "moving the goalposts."

No, that's called an accurate summary of your statements. Moving the goal posts would be the part where you backpedal when I point out that I said that life is in fact made up of just information.

And you, in your magnanimous knowledge of all things took this slim bit of information and deduced:

1) Logic is new to me.
2) I am shitting all over illogical things.
3) I will change my mind almost certainly in the next 10 years and become a good spiritual person like I must have been before logic was new to me.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew previously that I was a college student. But it wouldn't terribly surprise me if you "deduced" that from your crazy leet skills applied to the statement that "it seems trivially obvious that life is made of ones and zeroes. Or more precisely, base 4, but the same idea."

[Mr. Bane]

Can root create a file which even root cannot modify?

Yes.

[Grek]

It is implied by the definition. If there was nothing you couldn't do you cold do anything later. The basic self referentiality paradox is insurmountable by the definition of omnipotence. Either you can do something to keep yourself from being able to change something in the future or you can't. There is no third option. And either option is a limit of some kind.

If your omnipotence allows you to bypass all restrictions - including any you are capable of making - then there is at least one thing you can't do: lock yourself out. If on the other hand you can lock yourself out there is at least one thing you can't do: bypass your own lockout.

It's completely open and shut. It's a better argument even than the fact that perfection would require possession of all positive traits, and improvement is a positive trait.

-Username17

There totally is a third option: A truely omnipotent being could create a situation in which "A" and "Not A" are both true statements. Yes, that isn't logically possible, and yes that's incomprehensable to humanity, but that doesn't matter. An omnipotent being can, by definition, do stuff that's logically impossible and incomprehensable to humans. If you're going to use reductio ad absurdum to refute a premise, you have to use the whole premise.

This does mean that people who posist an omnipotent being have to abandon or modify a bunch of basic logical premises, but that doesn't make them wrong. That just means their premises are not very useful for reaching any answer other than "It is possible that God caused this to happen."

[Psychic Robot]

Words.

So, what you're saying is that you can't argue worth a shit because you're used to create straw men and having people not call you on it.