The Good Place

I know that you are making a point about believers and the use of the word "god" but let's just introduce some perspective here. I often use the word God as a convenience. It may be wholly inadequate to summarise what I mean or what I believe but it suggests a oneness, a creative impetus and a source of all that is. I should not need to provide a disclaimer, as I find I need to do on a regular basis even after all these years of airing my views, that I am not a believer in any religious sense.

I get that you have a beef about many devout adherents. So do I. Last night I went to the cinema and watched a film called Black Klansman about the KKK in the 1970s. It contained parts of speeches from leaders of that organisation and I sat there fuming in my seat. Much of their vile rhetoric was couched in religious language. There is no way on earth that I could entertain beliefs about any god that David Duke would appeal to. I hope that goes for all of us here (though I'm deliberately avoiding the CT/Politics sub-forums these days).

So while you are right in saying that the word is inadequate, so are words like nature (or Nature) which inevitably have a naturalistic connotation in common with physical or material. So perhaps we can, one day, get to the point where proponents here are not asked to answer for God's work as opposed to scientific inquiry. We can have, and have had many a discussion about our concepts of god or the nature of reality but to reduce those concepts to a binary choice between science and religion is something that only atheists and the religious are comfortable with.

As we are almost friends IRL, I happen to know that we are both members of a certain "church". The word in that church is that Black Klansman is a very fine movie... What did you think?

I guess my position is clear and maybe I've been a bit of a git in getting my point across. By all means use the word. But don't get upset if it confuses others and don't get upset if a different god than yours is getting critiqued.

As we are almost friends IRL, I happen to know that we are both members of a certain "church".   The word in that church is that Black Klansman is a very fine movie... What did you think?

I guess my position is clear and maybe I've been a bit of a git in getting my point across. By all means use the word. But don't get upset if it confuses others and don't get upset if a different god than yours is getting critiqued.

The movie has been described as a comedy and there are certainly some comedic moments but the dramatic tension was also high and the socio-political commentary pretty much as you might expect and also pretty much true to my impressions of the Klan from documentaries, books and movies throughout my life. So yes, a fine movie would be pretty accurate on several levels, I would agree.

I don't mind critiques of god - even my god - but I do mind the assumption that because I use the word god, I must believe in the god of the fundamentalists. Actually, there is a term that fairly well describes the god-concept I have in mind but to use that term might suggest that I'm a devotee of yet another religion, which I am not. The term is Brahman.

After reading all you've written to explain why not I'm no closer to understanding why not. Are you saying a soul can't fall under the category of materialism/physicalism even if the soul has been described to such a precise degree that it matches in precise detail how the human eye functions?

I'm saying that if something is non-material/non-physical, it doesn't become material/physical through the process of being described scientifically.

 I think he didn't understand how that was relevant to the discussion (neither do I, for that matter).

Linda

It was relevant to what Steve001 had posted.  Once upon a time I didn't understand why you were considered the baddie of Skeptiko but I'm beginning to see why now. I think you need to adjust your attitude here.  This is, I believe, the third time you have accused me of posting out of context as if I have any reason to do such.  Please refrain from making snide comments in future.

Not for you maybe, but using the g-word in a non religious context can be confusing.


Ahh, I get the confusion and apologise. "The devout" was meant in a singular form, as in "the devout individual"


Followers of a religious god are more likely to be prejudicial against gay people, this has been studied. But no matter, pick any of the less tolerant, unpleasant aspects of organised god worship that you'd rather not be associated with.

Or not. If you're not going to get troubled by the confusion, carry on.

There's no need to apologise, Malf. I just didn't and don't like... the way you suddenly introduced an issue that wasn't relevant to what we were discussing. For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with people's sexuality. I don't give a damn to be honest and I wish people would grow up and stop incessantly going on about what they want and what they don't want etc.

You should address your concerns about (fundamentalist?) religion to those subjugated by it, whether they desire to be, or they are too scared to do anything about it. This does not include little old ladies/men going to church on a Sunday BTW.

It was relevant to what Steve001 had posted.  Once upon a time I didn't understand why you were considered the baddie of Skeptiko but I'm beginning to see why now. I think you need to adjust your attitude here.  This is, I believe, the third time you have accused me of posting out of context as if I have any reason to do such.  Please refrain from making snide comments in future.

I wasn't accusing you of posting out of context. I was asking for clarification, as was Steve001. We don't understand why you think what you posted was in context, and were asking for a bit more explanation in order to understand. There was nothing snide about my comment - it was an inquiry because I would like to understand.

Linda

Well, someone can say they subscribe or don’t subscribe to something all they want, but over a period of (literally) years and hundreds of posts a person probably reveals at least something about what they think.

I think all Silence was saying is that it’s fair to draw on extended experience with someone if you don’t feel that they’re accurately portraying their position. Or, if they are accurately portraying it,  that they at least haven’t backed up that that’s their position via their posts/actions.

Well, your track record using this technique is poor. I've lost count of the number of times I've put up with the same stupid merry-go-round where I say something and you or someone else responds as though I've said something else. And then we see multiple pages of threads where I patiently attempt to point to what I said and provide further clarification, only to then have to listen to accusations of being deceitful, devious, obfuscatory, or mentally ill when what you or others want me to have said (usually some sort of straw man or false statement which is easily defeated) doesn't match up with my words. So please excuse me if I am suspicious of your claim that you or anyone else will be able to accurately suss out my position by ignoring what I say about my position.

Linda

I guess my position is clear and maybe I've been a bit of a git in getting my point across. By all means use the word. But don't get upset if it confuses others and don't get upset if a different god than yours is getting critiqued.

Quite a while ago I thought hard about the minimum requirements an entity would have in order to be considered "God" and came up with, "a capricious creative or controlling force". So personally, if someone says "God" in a discussion, I don't assume that they mean the Judeo-Christian God. I only assume that bare minimum, so as to avoid arguments about the low-hanging fruit, such as homophobia, etc.

Linda

I'm saying that if something is non-material/non-physical, it doesn't become material/physical through the process of being described scientifically.

I know this is what you've been stating the whole time. The answer is insufficient though. You see Chris, the very process of describing something scientifically is by definition a description of real things and real things are by any definition physical.

Is that your way of saying that you aren’t going to listen to what we say we do or do not subscribe to?

Cute, but incorrect.  No, it was my rather plain and direct way of saying I read what you and others write.  That includes the potential quandary for when someone might make a statement about themselves that is inconsistent with their posting history.