CoG Ethically Dubious?

Hey Guys,

It's fun to play around with definitions of words and then use formal logic to prove or disprove something ridiculous isn't it?

Basically you've taken 10 definitions for the word/concept 'God' and made it fit a tool. Yup, that's pretty clever and you could do it for a lots of different things, not just search engines.

But you kinda missed out on one of the big ones. One of the things that most religious people will tell you about 'God'. They'll say that 'God' is the creator of the universe/world.

It's pretty common to have a creation myth in just about every religion and it's a pretty major factor to be missing from Googlism don't you think?

That aside this post isn't to get into a pointless definitions argument. I'm not religious - I'm a Humanist with Pastafarian leanings, and frankly I don't care what you guys choose to believe in. Google is god? It's not the weirdest thing I've every heard someone profess to believe.

But it's clearly an intellectual exercises for a lot of you. Simply to rub it in the face of religious people that what they believe is silly or unsubstantiated.

Gotta say guys that this is one of the worst aspects of sceptical thought. The fact that some sceptics feel the need to rub the fact that they believe they are right in the face of others.

Atheists like us hate it when religious people try to force their values on us (eg: teaching ID in school as science). We shouldn't be doing the same to them.

If you are one of these I'd urge you to take a look at your motivations for getting involves with the CoG and if it comes down to 'Proving how silly religion is.' then I'd suggest you find something more productive to do with your time.

If an ethical argument doesn't sway you here is one using formal logic:

- Faith is believing in something despite a lack of evidence to support a religious belief. (OK technically it doesn't have to a religious belief but stick with me here).
- It follows that providing evidence to disprove a religious belief is not going to shake a persons faith since said faith does not require evidence.

- Ergo it is pointless to try and convince a person with faith in a religion that they are wrong by providing evidence.

QED

Just get on with your lives. Live ethically and let this site die guys.

Originally Said by Omni

QED

I like you already, if only for that. I'm sure each of us has our own motive for being here, and one of the major factors for many of us is the occasional intellectual exercise which arguing entails. Not the only factor, but it's up there.

Originally Said by Omni

It's fun to play around with definitions of words and then use formal logic to prove or disprove something ridiculous isn't it?

You're right, it IS fun.

Originally Said by Omni

But you kinda missed out on one of the big ones. One of the things that most religious people will tell you about 'God'. They'll say that 'God' is the creator of the universe/world.

It's pretty common to have a creation myth in just about every religion and it's a pretty major factor to be missing from Googlism don't you think?

Just because something is common, doesn't make it ideal. Googlists (AFAIK) believe in the theory of evolution as our 'Creation myth'. But we have evidence to back that up. Who says God has to have created the world? Religion. Who are we trying to mock? Religion. Right.

Originally Said by Omni

That aside this post isn't to get into a pointless definitions argument. I'm not religious - I'm a Humanist with Pastafarian leanings, and frankly I don't care what you guys choose to believe in. Google is god? It's not the weirdest thing I've every heard someone profess to believe.

Yeah, have you heard about this 'Christianity' thing? Some guy walking on water, using magic and returning as an undead? How silly.

Originally Said by Omni

Atheists like us hate it when religious people try to force their values on us (eg: teaching ID in school as science). We shouldn't be doing the same to them.

But the difference is, we're right. And we're trying to do it in a fun way. Are we really forcing our values on them? No. Aside from a small amount of advertising to get word of the church out, all our arguments and debates have been contained to our forum where other people have come OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. We're not really forcing values upon anyone.

Originally Said by Omni

If you are one of these I'd urge you to take a look at your motivations for getting involves with the CoG and if it comes down to 'Proving how silly religion is.' then I'd suggest you find something more productive to do with your time.

It's fun, and engaging in debates such as those on this forum tend to stretch one's one creativity, intelligience and debating skills. That's enough for me. Proving how silly religion is, that's just a bonus.

Originally Said by Omni

- Ergo it is pointless to try and convince a person with faith in a religion that they are wrong by providing evidence.

Sadly, this is so often the case. But there are limits to everything. There is a limit to how much can be disproved before people may stop having faith - as faith is not actually conscious choice (there are other discussions on this).

Originally Said by Omni

Just get on with your lives. Live ethically and let this site die guys.

Hmm... No.

(And it's a pity you said you weren't religious, or the best responce now would have been something along the lines of letting Jesus die, and stay dead.)

Originally Said by Nameless

(And it's a pity you said you weren't religious, or the best responce now would have been something along the lines of letting Jesus die, and stay dead.)

Yes, it is a shame he said he wasn't religious..otherwise that witty line may have actually seemed witty...

Originally Said by Omni

Basically you've taken 10 definitions for the word/concept 'God' and made it fit a tool.

Gods of the past are just as much tools as Google ever has or will be. Supernatural gods are psychological tools people use to cope with reality.

Originally Said by MeTHoD-X

Gods of the past are just as much tools as Google ever has or will be. Supernatural gods are psychological tools people use to cope with reality.

I agree. Humans are the only creatures on Earth that are aware of their own death, so we create gods and theories that ease our inquisitive thoughts about the meaning of life.

Originally Said by Nameless

Just because something is common, doesn't make it ideal. Googlists (AFAIK) believe in the theory of evolution as our 'Creation myth'. But we have evidence to back that up. Who says God has to have created the world? Religion. Who are we trying to mock? Religion. Right.

Hey don't get annoyed with me because you had to significantly modify the common definition of 'God' to suit your childish prank.

Most people would define god as the creator of the universe. It's a standard part of the working definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Originally Said by First paragraph in the body of text in Wikipedia

God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the fundemental force behind existence. He is believed variously to be the creator, controller, or at least the sustainer, of the universe.

You haven't even satisfied that criteria.

But the difference is, we're right. And we're trying to do it in a fun way. Are we really forcing our values on them? No. Aside from a small amount of advertising to get word of the church out, all our arguments and debates have been contained to our forum where other people have come OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. We're not really forcing values upon anyone.

But thats precisesly the point I'm making. You hang a big sign on the door saying, 'We mock your religious values' and when religious people inevitably are offended by the sign and come in to argue their side you jump on their heads.

It's childish and disrespectful. Most religious people I know don't do the same thing to me because I'm an Athiest. There are exceptions of course, but the funny thing is that most religious people disagree with the fundies!

How often do we say that because of suicide bombings that all Muslims are tainted with the same brush? How often do we point at the religious right and say, 'That is whats wrong with Christianity?'

And to a degree we are right to do that. Islam *should* keep it's own house clean and do more to stamp out extremism. The church *should* do more to stop nut bags from harrassing women at abortion clinics and shooting the doctors that work there.

The same way that as a humanist *I* should try and dissuade you guys from behaving like snide little smartarses and being inconsiderate of the feelings and opinions of religious people. Especially when it comes down to it being just for your own entertainment. Why create more tension unneccessarilly?

It's fun, and engaging in debates such as those on this forum tend to stretch one's one creativity, intelligience and debating skills. That's enough for me. Proving how silly religion is, that's just a bonus.

Tedious, immature and droll my friend. I'd suggest reflecting on the reason why getting other people angry and brow beating them in arguments makes you feel better about yourself.

Sadly, this is so often the case. But there are limits to everything. There is a limit to how much can be disproved before people may stop having faith - as faith is not actually conscious choice (there are other discussions on this).

Yeah. Ok this is a whole different argument. Suffice to say that 'faith' has lots of different meanings. One of which could also be applied to our 'faith' in science. God knows I haven't don't experiments to prove every theory that I effectively take as 'fact'. Hell I don't even check to see if other scientists have done it most of the time. I have faith that other scientists have done it for me already and I only check if something makes me doubt that.

Even with checking, it still requires faith that it's not all just made up doesn't it?

Ohh and Aaron, thanks bro, good reply.

Originally Said by Omni

Hey don't get annoyed with me because you had to significantly modify the common definition of 'God' to suit your childish prank.

Most people would define god as the creator of the universe. It's a standard part of the working definition.

There's a very subtle difference you have missed. You're talking about 'God', with a capital 'G'. We're just saying 'god'. We wouldn't say Google is Allah, or Google is Buddha - and we're not saying Google is God. We're saying Google is OUR god.......no capital 'G'.

But thats precisesly the point I'm making. You hang a big sign on the door saying, 'We mock your religious values' and when religious people inevitably are offended by the sign and come in to argue their side you jump on their heads.

Why are we mocking their religious values? Because they believe something different to us? And we don't 'jump on their heads'. What are we supposed to do - agree with them? Have we jumped on your head?

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'and come in'. They come in of their own free will. We aren't out there luring them in. I would even go so far as saying they come here looking to mock our religion, because they believe THEY are right and WE are wrong.

They sure don't call in to say 'g'day' and to have a look around. Let's face it, a forum about Paganism or Wicca or atheism would offend most followers of conventional religions, and I know for a fact that they troll forums such as the above as regularly as they do this one. In fact, I have come across several religious 'trolls' who disrupt any religious forum on a regular basis. It's what they do.....

Another thing that might be worth noting is this. We aren't going to other forums promoting our beliefs. Googlism has it's own momentum, we don't have to do anything. AND, for all the 'promotion' that's allegedly going on, I bet there's twice as much adverse publicity.

Originally Said by LordPengin

I agree. Humans are the only creatures on Earth that are aware of their own death, so we create gods and theories that ease our inquisitive thoughts about the meaning of life.

Not true, modern humans are not alone in that. The Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and all species in the line afterwards were concious of death (possibly before that as well?). Neanderthals also were the first to show religious significance in death.

The point of the site, and coming here is to debate with people who are unwilling to accept or aknowledge other people's beliefs. We do not force them to come here, we do not pressure them to stay, further, we 'force' our beliefs way less than they actually do force their beliefs on us.

We also, have aknowledged that Google does not perfectly fit the description of god. The main site says

Closest

with emphasis.

As said before, the religion follows evolutionism.

Sure lots of religious people do not force views on you, but then again, most teenagers do not steal. We remember the ones that behave negatively, it is not always fair, but everyone does it.

I know that most moderates do not agree with the fundementalists. There is a reason for that.