Half a concept: what does that get you?

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I really don't know how people think about this.

 

[quatona]

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

I have no god concept of my own. I have to work with those of the believers who tell me about theirs. That these concepts are mostly half-baked isn´t my fault.
Not believing in someone else´s claims is far from being a philosophy, btw.

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end?

That isn´t a matter of fairness.

Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts?

No.

Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part?

Huh?

And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

When I say I don´t believe your claim that a God exists, I am saying nothing about your works or the quality thereof.

I really don't know how people think about this.

It all sounds a little confuse, to be honest.

 

[Oafman]

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

I get part A, but I'm not sure what you mean by part B. Could you expand on that please.

 

[Paradoxum]

Hi there!

I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I really don't know how people think about this.

What do you mean? If you are an atheist, why wouldn't you think Christians helping the poor is good? What has it got to do with half a concept?

Why does a concept have to produce anything? The point is whether it is true or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I find your OP very confusing, but I will focus on this.

And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I believe in the existence of good works, such as giving money to a charity. There are people who do this.

I believe that the good works of some Christians are motivated by their belief in and love of God. I don't believe that God is the cause of those good works -- just the idea of God.

Does that answer your question?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

Parts A and B are only 2/3 of the concept. You forgot Part C. Which is all the wickedness and villainy done in God's name. Like religious wars, persecution of non-believers, forced conversions, torture and execution for heresy, corruption in the church hierarchy, suppression of science and free thought, destruction of indigenous cultures, and myriad other evil acts thoughout history.

 

[Davian]

Hi there!
...
I really don't know how people think about this.

QFT.

 

[Gottservant]

I get part A, but I'm not sure what you mean by part B. Could you expand on that please.

Like I said "trees" and "fruits". For example, someone loves the look of trees, the way they grow, the curves they follow... and they go on and on about it, but then the tree grows fruit and they are like "I hope that tree dies now".

When I say part B in relation to God, I mean that it is one thing to deny God, but quite another to say you are going to do nothing for all the starving, thirsty, poor, needy, naked, destitute, homeless people of the world.

We say "we believe in God" but it doesn't just stop there.

 

[Gottservant]

What do you mean? If you are an atheist, why wouldn't you think Christians helping the poor is good? What has it got to do with half a concept?

Why does a concept have to produce anything? The point is whether it is true or not.

Do atheists think that though? I'm sure they'd like to.

The point about something true is really what I was trying to get at, actually. Well done! You answered my questioning. I haven't always thought that concepts have to have results (as pragmatism suggests), but something happened recently that led me to question that. Now I see that there is actually a difference of opinion about what a concept is for.

You think a concept is for truth or the discernment thereof, I think a concept is like a beacon or a marker on a map that guide and directs behaviour, like an instruction. There is a big difference! But only if you are actually going somewhere! One will get you there, the other will leave you there (and that's not the way around I had it originally!)

So yes, thankyou, that clears quite a bit up. I don't suppose you can tell me what half a concept is to the truth? Is it half a truth? Is that what is the other side?

 

[Gottservant]

I find your OP very confusing, but I will focus on this.



I believe in the existence of good works, such as giving money to a charity. There are people who do this.

I believe that the good works of some Christians are motivated by their belief in and love of God. I don't believe that God is the cause of those good works -- just the idea of God.

Does that answer your question?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes I suppose it answers something, but the whole question of causality is lacking from your final answer.

If the idea causes the action, isn't the idea real?

I mean if there was nothing, and then there was something, that makes "the something" "real", no?

And if it is becoming real, then who knows where it will stop, right?

You say "it is just an idea" but actually that's not a new idea, that's an old idea - saying something is just what it is - because when you say that you don't actually do anything about it, you don't put the idea away, whereas people keep doing things for God, so that idea grows. See what I'm getting at?

 

[Gottservant]

Parts A and B are only 2/3 of the concept. You forgot Part C. Which is all the wickedness and villainy done in God's name. Like religious wars, persecution of non-believers, forced conversions, torture and execution for heresy, corruption in the church hierarchy, suppression of science and free thought, destruction of indigenous cultures, and myriad other evil acts thoughout history.

Religion is merely a focus.

If there had been no focus, those crimes would have been much worse.

Undoubtedly, longer lasting.

 

[Gottservant]

QFT.

I think you will find that no one knows what to think about saying hello.

 

[jayem]

Religion is merely a focus.

I don't know what that means.

The fact remains that if the concept of God has produced some good fruit, it's produced plenty of rotten fruit, too.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Hi there!

I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I really don't know how people think about this.

Whether God is real literally has nothing at all to do with what people do in His/Her/It's name.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes I suppose it answers something, but the whole question of causality is lacking from your final answer.

If the idea causes the action, isn't the idea real?

Ideas are real.

I mean if there was nothing, and then there was something, that makes "the something" "real", no?

And if it is becoming real, then who knows where it will stop, right?

What is this something you are referring to? The universe? Unquestionably, the universe is real. It exists. It has a future that we can guess at but do not know with complete accuracy.

You say "it is just an idea" but actually that's not a new idea, that's an old idea - saying something is just what it is - because when you say that you don't actually do anything about it, you don't put the idea away, whereas people keep doing things for God, so that idea grows. See what I'm getting at?

No. Your paragraph above is very unclear. I'm not sure if that is because your thoughts are unclear, or if is just a problem with the writing style.

All I see is that if God is just an idea, that doesn't add up to a creator of the universe. It's just an idea in the mind of human beings within an already existing universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Do atheists think that though? I'm sure they'd like to.

Do atheists think what?

The point about something true is really what I was trying to get at, actually. Well done! You answered my questioning. I haven't always thought that concepts have to have results (as pragmatism suggests), but something happened recently that led me to question that. Now I see that there is actually a difference of opinion about what a concept is for.

Why did you doubt that concepts are for truth?

Well they can be for practicalities, prudence, or wisdom. For example, I don't think we objectively have free will, but we have to have some concept to freedom for our morality. It is subjectively needed. But I still to think that such concepts can have truth in them.

You think a concept is for truth or the discernment thereof, I think a concept is like a beacon or a marker on a map that guide and directs behaviour, like an instruction. There is a big difference! But only if you are actually going somewhere! One will get you there, the other will leave you there (and that's not the way around I had it originally!)

If all concepts aren't for truth, then why believe them? Believe a lie that makes you feel good, or gets you want you want?

So yes, thankyou, that clears quite a bit up. I don't suppose you can tell me what half a concept is to the truth? Is it half a truth? Is that what is the other side?

What does 'half a concept' mean? And I can't speak for what other atheists believe, just myself.

 

[Oafman]

Religion is merely a focus.

If there had been no focus, those crimes would have been much worse.

Undoubtedly, longer lasting.

Huh?

Persecution of non-believers would have been much worse if religion had never existed?! Punishment for heresy would have been longer lasting in a godless world?!

Those crimes, by definition, could never have happened if it wasn't for religion. They are the undeniable result of religion.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't know what that means.

The fact remains that if the concept of God has produced some good fruit, it's produced plenty of rotten fruit, too.

Yes and the fact remains that if God had not existed a lot worse would have happened.

Religion is a focus, not a weapon, not an illusion.

Can you imagine someone saying "We must persecute people who think the world is round in the name of religion" today? No, then obviously God did some good, He didn't rule out that the world could be round and indeed He didn't demand that people see it as flat, so now there is no persecution.

Whereas, if there was no God and people started saying "We must persecute people who think the world is round in the name of the flatness of the Earth" people would hold on to their perception of the flatness of the Earth, the very evidently flat nature of the Earth and would continue to persecute, even when evidence was shown to the contrary, because of the appeal of the immediacy of the appearance of the flatness of the Earth. God gives no such appeal to the flesh that those who believe in Him should remain deceived by one behaviour over another that is more justified, that is rather the point.

At least if you are deceived by God, you can question it easily enough.

 

[Gottservant]

Ideas are real.

What is this something you are referring to? The universe? Unquestionably, the universe is real. It exists. It has a future that we can guess at but do not know with complete accuracy.

Peace in Jesus.

Unfortunately, you do not extend the same grace to God as you do to the universe, merely because you see the universe but you do not see God.

The idea of God is growing, just questioning it is going to leave you behind, nothing else.

Your statement that we already exist in the universe, with the subtext that we do not already exist in God, is presumptive and false.

 

[Gottservant]

Huh?

Persecution of non-believers would have been much worse if religion had never existed?! Punishment for heresy would have been longer lasting in a godless world?!

Those crimes, by definition, could never have happened if it wasn't for religion. They are the undeniable result of religion.

You play on words.

What if I said I was going to persecute you for plays on words? How would you stop me? At what point would you say "look even by your standards, persecuting me for plays on words is ridiculous" and I would believe you?

Compare with the statement "even by the standard of your God, persecuting me for plays on words is ridiculous": it is much more persuasive. Even from a scientific point of view, it is known that projecting a problem on to someone else more often leads to a solution. Appealing to a higher authority is much the same thing.

The trouble is I can point that out because I believe, but you can't believe just because I point it out (so you are waiting for something, I am not).