The biggest problem with the book is that Dawkins demonstrates that the gods are living, evolving ideas which have developed over time to the point of being able to exert agency on the world… And then remains an atheist. Instead of concluding, as Terry Pratchett liked to joke, that the gods are alien intelligences created by humans through worship.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. How does your last sentence flow from your first? I think most atheists would agree with the notion that gods are ideas passed down over generations. They’re not real things that actually exist, but like anything people believe, the very idea of them exerts an influence on society…which we see every time a government passes a law based in religious ideology, like anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws.
None of that even seems very controversial. Unless you’re a believer in a literal god or gods, I’m not sure where the problem is.
That guy is pretty much Baudrillarding that people live in the world created by media — including folk communication like memes in this case — so if this collective consciousness says something is true, it might as well be.
(You might want to tag the user, as they regularly say pretty weird stuff, this one is rather mild for them. Or don’t and let yourself be surprised.)
Sorry when you say “that guy”, you’re talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with here on the fediverse? Because to be honest I didn’t think they were saying anything that didn’t seem pretty much in line with what I was already agreeing with them about.
you’re talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with
The commenter.
The difference between you and them is they’re saying it doesn’t matter whether Jesus or God actually physically ever existed and actually did what’s ascribed to them — but, if people believe that they do or did then Jesus and God effectively exist(ed) as far as people can tell. It’s kind of a variation on solipsism where the noosphere dictates the effective perceived reality instead of any one individual mind.
As I mentioned, you can catch a further glimpse of their peculiar worldview if you peruse their previous comments, but this particular take here is probably the most comprehensible I’ve seen from them so far.
The idea of a god is a god. Jesus actually exists, He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.
I mean, sort of? That statement isn’t literally true, but taken metaphorically it basically matches what I said.
Jesus actually exists
Scholarly consensus is that he was indeed a real person who actually existed, but he obviously didn’t perform the actual literal miracles described in the bible.
He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.
Yeah, sure. He doesn’t literally live, but the idea of him has a powerful effect, so metaphorically you could say he influences the world through his followers.
Unless you’re getting into some really fucking weird mumbo jumbo bullshit and you’re trying to claim it is actually absolutely literal that he exists and exerts a force on the world directly, I don’t see where you and I are in disagreement.
Umm, no, I don’t believe in any gods. The only effect gods have is the effect caused by people acting in accordance with their belief, shared down through the ages and evolved at every stage by the culture it’s a part of, in those gods.
Gods are like money. They only exist because people believe in them. But they can still have an effect on the world because of how that belief works. For example, I think money makes people more selfish. Money creates billionaires and drives them to run sweatshops and bribe politicians. Money made the oil industry, money is destroying the world.
Do you believe money is capable of agency, of changing people’s behaviour, like I do? Or do you think it’s just people acting on their own based on their belief in money, and money itself isn’t making any of the decisions?
The biggest problem with the book is that Dawkins demonstrates that the gods are living, evolving ideas which have developed over time to the point of being able to exert agency on the world… And then remains an atheist. Instead of concluding, as Terry Pratchett liked to joke, that the gods are alien intelligences created by humans through worship.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. How does your last sentence flow from your first? I think most atheists would agree with the notion that gods are ideas passed down over generations. They’re not real things that actually exist, but like anything people believe, the very idea of them exerts an influence on society…which we see every time a government passes a law based in religious ideology, like anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws.
None of that even seems very controversial. Unless you’re a believer in a literal god or gods, I’m not sure where the problem is.
That guy is pretty much Baudrillarding that people live in the world created by media — including folk communication like memes in this case — so if this collective consciousness says something is true, it might as well be.
(You might want to tag the user, as they regularly say pretty weird stuff, this one is rather mild for them. Or don’t and let yourself be surprised.)
Sorry when you say “that guy”, you’re talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with here on the fediverse? Because to be honest I didn’t think they were saying anything that didn’t seem pretty much in line with what I was already agreeing with them about.
The commenter.
The difference between you and them is they’re saying it doesn’t matter whether Jesus or God actually physically ever existed and actually did what’s ascribed to them — but, if people believe that they do or did then Jesus and God effectively exist(ed) as far as people can tell. It’s kind of a variation on solipsism where the noosphere dictates the effective perceived reality instead of any one individual mind.
As I mentioned, you can catch a further glimpse of their peculiar worldview if you peruse their previous comments, but this particular take here is probably the most comprehensible I’ve seen from them so far.
The idea of a god is a god. Jesus actually exists, He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.
And this means they’re alien intelligence how?
They’re not human. Their minds work very differently to human minds.
I mean, sort of? That statement isn’t literally true, but taken metaphorically it basically matches what I said.
Scholarly consensus is that he was indeed a real person who actually existed, but he obviously didn’t perform the actual literal miracles described in the bible.
Yeah, sure. He doesn’t literally live, but the idea of him has a powerful effect, so metaphorically you could say he influences the world through his followers.
Unless you’re getting into some really fucking weird mumbo jumbo bullshit and you’re trying to claim it is actually absolutely literal that he exists and exerts a force on the world directly, I don’t see where you and I are in disagreement.
Well then you believe in all the gods. Elohim, Thor, Ra, etc. right?
Umm, no, I don’t believe in any gods. The only effect gods have is the effect caused by people acting in accordance with their belief, shared down through the ages and evolved at every stage by the culture it’s a part of, in those gods.
Gods are like money. They only exist because people believe in them. But they can still have an effect on the world because of how that belief works. For example, I think money makes people more selfish. Money creates billionaires and drives them to run sweatshops and bribe politicians. Money made the oil industry, money is destroying the world.
Do you believe money is capable of agency, of changing people’s behaviour, like I do? Or do you think it’s just people acting on their own based on their belief in money, and money itself isn’t making any of the decisions?
That would be a massive logical leap for someone to make
Not it’s just a symbolic framing calm down rationality-crusader