God is that "thing" that, to the best of your knowledge, is at the top of your hierarchy of values.
If you envision that as a bearded man who lives in the sky, then that's your God.
If, for you, it's, say, verifiable fact, then verifiable fact is, functionally speaking, your God.
If it's freedom from Gods, then that's your God!
If your highest value is doing as you please, then that's your God.
If you'd prefer to use a different word, then by all means, do so, but either consciously or unconsciously, you still have a highest value, and you still relate to it the way humans have related to Gods since we have existed.
I don't think there's a bearded man in the sky. But I'm thoroughly convinced that all conscious humans have a system of values, and that some of those values are regarded with greater deference than others. And the one, or few that cluster at the top, function in our lives the way gods function in our mythologies. If you live in defiance of all things other than your own whim... then you have deified yourself.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
28 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I might be missing your meaning, and if so I apologize, but doesn't calling the things we value "God" muddy the waters somewhat? No, of course I don't believe in a bearded man in the sky. And of course I have things I value. But my relationship to my values is far different from how people typically express their devotion to Yahweh or Allah or other personified gods. I don't worship security, though I certainly value it as something worth having in my life. I don't worship money, though I want plenty so I don't worry about my needs and my future. I value having knowledge and a perspective that, as best as possible, aligns with reality, but I accept that I will always fall short. I value peace, but I see the occasional need for self-defense. I value relationships of various sorts and, while not fungible, I realize my relationships are dynamic and will come and go in various ways. I grant that some people have extreme devotion to things like making money or to pacifism or to social justice, and in that way it's at least similar to religious fervor. There are those who believe science will fix every problem we have, so we don't need to worry about things like conservation; that's blind faith. But I guess my real point here is that, when I did believe in the bearded man in the sky, I otherwise held basically the same values I hold today, largely to the same degree as I do now, and when I shucked off my belief in the bearded man in the sky I didn't promote a value for knowledge or money to that extreme level of dogmatic worship. If the pursuit of knowledge wasn't my God when I believed in a traditional God but still valued knowledge, why would I now call it "God" when it has about the same degree of value in my life as it used to? I don't see the need in calling these things "God" when we can instead call them "values" and avoid conflating disparate concepts. Am I missing your intent?
resserts
Level 8
Jan 6, 2020
5
Good thoughts. I’d say god is not just values in general, but the one value that rises above all the rest. For most of us it’s some kind of abstraction, like autonomy, or personal sovereignty.
When you dropped bearded man, you were in effect placing truth above delusion, or something like that, right? So, functionally speaking, truth is at least higher than bearded man in the ranking. Pinning it down to a single thing can be difficult, but in practice, something more often wins out over just about everything else. No?
@skado It does not mater what your highest value is. If it is scientific truth, money or kindness, you should call it scientific truth, money and kindness, if only for the sake of accuracy. Giving it the name of a brearded man in the sky, is just an unneeded and sometimes dangerous complication which gets in the way of that accuracy.
And metaphorically it is such an old worn out symbolic metaphor, most kids get past that sort of play with words by the time they reach fourteen. It is Orwellian double speak, which does not really work, since words just change their meanings when misused to aline once again with popular prejudice. All that happens is that it makes it harder for people to understand history, if you force the language to change, and with that you loose the most important of all sourses of wisdom, understanding the past.
@skado I have watched him, quite a lot, and the more I see the more I am nauseated, his creepy demeanor is too much, and his obvious self satisfaction at having conned Toronto Uni. into giving him what is no doubt a very good income, riding on the back of their need to appear inclusive, regardless of the quality of their output is truely sickening.
Yes science is certainly moving forward, but fortunately not in Vervaeke's direction. His seventies-ish woo long since looked as dated, as the super engineering science of the sixties, and soon he and his like will hopefully be sidelined. People who are unable to move on, and are still trying to keep alive the long discredited fringe cultures of my adolescent years, (Which most outgrew years ago discussing the marriage of religion and science, with youthful naivety and bloshiness in the common room while the sensible kids played 'pong' in the background.) because they have no real moral compass, and it helps them to delude an good living and a degree of prestige, where they can find people and institutions who are vunerable to exploitation. Life is too short to waste on that sort of shit.
@skado For fun, but mainly in the hope that it may be of some use to someone else in their journey. If they disagree with me or think me foolish, it does not matter, I am far enough down my path not to care about that, as long as it gives them some food for thought or a helping hand on their journey, it is enough even if they tread me down, because now I am on the level fields it will not push me back even if I am trampled on, as long as they gain a step forward by doing so.
@skado I see it more as emptying my basket of seeds to see what will grow, than soldiering, I care not what people do with what grows even if they kill it as a weed, as long as my basket is empty at days end and something grows. But I do try to sow good seed and would never resort to deliberately sowing weeds.
I can’t think in the same way you do I’m afraid. My values and what gives meaning to my life are all based on humanity and nature and their interdependence and connectivity. There isn’t a one thing ...a “god” in your own parlance, that I look to or regard as paramount. My freedom from gods is so fundamental to my existence that it would never enter into my thought process to think of anything in that way. I suspect without looking at your bio that you have come from a background of being a believer in god, and of course that will affect your thought processes, just as mine are coloured by a complete lack of such a belief.
Marionville
Level 10
Jan 6, 2020
3
I abandoned my already quite lax religious upbringing at 14, and have lived my whole adult life without a god concept. I’m 70 now, and it has only been in the last couple of years that I have, for the first time in my life, started to understand and appreciate religious symbology. It was not a part of my religious training. It is a philosophical perspective; not a belief system. It’s not about sky-daddys and afterlifes. It’s about art and psychology and philosophy. I’m not trying to make statements about how things are. I’m just sharing a perspective. I respect that other perspectives are just as valid for those who hold them.
@skado I respect that...I in no way intended my response to demean your ideas or perspectives. As individuals we are diverse and our thoughts and philosophies differ accordingly, This is part of what makes life interesting and human beings so fascinating to me. It’s good to be able to exchange views and hear how others differ in theirs, I understand that you are sharing yours with us and I appreciate that.
I do not think about any "system of values"......I just live my life.
Now that I am thinking about it, my priority is my elderly dog having a good life, and me too.
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Jan 6, 2020
4
This contradicts your last post.
The notion of heathen culture is etymologically oxymoronic.
[agnostic.com]
You can not have etymology as important in one post, and then mess with it to the most extreme degree in the next.
Fernapple
Level 9
Jan 6, 2020
2
Watch me! 
Ouch! You assume he is not a hornet's nest stirrer.......
I hope you're not averse to a little levity now and then. I didn't have time to give a serious response this morning, but I'd like to try now.
I don't see why everything a person writes has to be in the same tone. It's good if a post is internally consistent, but why can't a person write poetry in the morning and prose in the evening? Sometimes I post jokes in the silly section - do they have to comport with my more serious commentary too?
With the etymology piece I was riffing on word root origins as a frame for presenting some related ideas. Never did I say or suggest that we are somehow bound to those origins and may not stray beyond them. It was a stylistic mechanism; not a declaration of immutable fact, or an effort to prove anything.
I don't think it's realistic to expect a person to adhere to a single style for everything they write.
Obviously, root origins are not the only meaning inherent in a word.
And just as obviously, the word god has a very long usage history of meaning exactly what I was suggesting in the other piece. The American Heritage Dictionary lists exactly that meaning as:
- One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
[ahdictionary.com]
It's the very reason I used Clapton as the image, instead of some renaissance painting of God. Most words have more than one meaning. There is no conflict inherent in looking at them from different angles. It's not about trying to prove anything: it's just a way to open a discussion.
@AnneWimsey Oh. He knows what I am. LOL
@skado I did not say there was a change in tone, I said contradicts.
I posted this at the top but will put it here too, for Ann's benefit, in the hopes she does not already think I am boring enough.
You see you are writing this on the wrong site, most people on this site do not use the word god just because they don't believe in one, but mainly because they are also too honest to believe in one.
God is a word used by dishonest people, (religious) in exactly the way you describe, to give added authority, to things which do not deserve to have any authority. Most people on this site have already seen that problem and moved on past it.
@Fernapple
You're assuming I make the same associations with the word God that you do, but that is just not the case. For me it's just a figure of speech, with no power to confer authority to anything. As I said in the OP, if you'd prefer to use a different word, then by all means, do so. It is only when you stop giving that word power that you are truly free from it.
@skado Then if it means nothing and has no power why use it at all, especially if it muddies the etymology of others words which are clear and much better defined to start with.
And also when the use of any word in any circumstance, always lends support to those who do regard it as powerful, by making their sphere larger.
@Fernapple
I didn't say it had no meaning. I use it because I'm not afraid of seeking commonality with those I disagree with. I'm not afraid to lend support to others. I think there's more strength in unity than in division. I like art, history, and culture. I like texture and nuance. I like complexity and adventure. I like life.
Seems like a definition fallacy, and a christian one to boot.
In Christianity it is common for believers to see anyone who does not follow the religion in their chosen fashion as less than, to accuse people of worshiping money, or work, or whatever, as the paramount thing in their life, and therefore as their chosen God.
That is painting the notion of a deity onto everything in life and then telling anyone not like you that they are also worshiping a god, of money, of work and so on.
That will never make what a person chose as paramount a deity.
Davesnothere
Level 7
Jan 6, 2020
2
Not a literal one, but very much a metaphorical one.
Nah, not me. I'm just a humble organism.....here just to eat, drink, crap and procreate.
MsDemeanour
Level 8
Jan 6, 2020
3
No values?
@skado I could choose to have values but it might make me judgemental 
The "top" of my "hierarchy" is when I reach to the top shelf for the Macallan's 21 instead of muddling about with the Jim Bean.
Hierarchical thinking is limiting - we should all already be versed in the fallacies these types of organizational pigeonholes. Identifying a "top" value makes no sense to me; any attempt to define it is automatic tautology. Not calling it 'god' by any other name is immediately unhelpful. Ditch the fifth wheel, I'd say.
I prefer relational thinking. My goals, values and environment shift and change over time. Ergo, so does my strategies, tactics and arsenal of tools I use to cope with it. There is no 'one' aspect of myself I consider the 'best' aspect of me.
Here I be, a fully entrenched entity, cognizant and interrogative. There is nothing mystical about me. And, what's great is that I just don't give a shit that I am not 'special'. Ridding my mind of such clutter allows me to thoroughly enjoy everything around me.
::::looks at above::: Huh. How's that for some fancy words...
LatentumCattus
Level 6
Jan 6, 2020
2
Well chosen words!
@OwlInASack - Ha! At least it's not Johnny Walker...
I'm not much of a scotch drinker; the Macallans was gifted to me - but I know enough to taste the difference there.
In hindsight (something that Cats are particularly good at), I should have gone the Gordons/Sipsmith gin route...
@OwlInASack - Tanqueray works, no opposition there.
I just recently sampled Hendricks and was quite impressed. Sipsmith is nice as it has accents of olive and sage; it makes an outstanding martini. I also ran across an interesting gin from Greece called Grace - it has a smoky, slick (but not oleaginous) feel with hints of orange; I found it makes tasty G&T with orange instead of lime. And Monkey 47 makes a great G&T as well!
NYC has seen a resurgence of gin bars popping up lately; the Winston on East 14th Street is my "go to" place to sample gin. This makes this Cattus very happy.
@OwlInASack - Agreed. I had no idea that I liked G&Ts until a few years ago, when I actually had a good one. Then I was like "Where have you been all my life?!?"
It is fascinating to be a part of the recent wave of how people drink in NYC - there is a renewed emphasis on quality, nostalgia, skill, history and taste going on - and it is the Millennials who are leading the charge!
Understood - it's been a while for me skipping over the Pond, too. You guys seems to be having your own exciting times with Boris and sorting out identities as well.
I raise a glass to you; may your troubles be light and your tonics be fizzy! These asshats can't stay in office forever, let us hope the damage done can be fixed!
To add to the analogy, if you're an agnostic, your God is withholding judgment and/or remaining open to possibility. It's hard to argue against your point, though for now, something inside me is resistant, and perhaps I simply find objectionable the use in this way, of the word God. I'll have to file this one under "subjects for further research." Does all this remind anyone else of the Bob Dylan song:
Rossy92
Level 8
Jan 6, 2020
2
Oh, I had forgotten about that! Good one! I wonder how he feels about that period now.
So, God can mean anything, basically. A bit NewAgy isn't it skado?
David1955
Level 8
Jan 5, 2020
3
1of5:
God can mean anything
Since the word for "anything" actually exists, doesn't that mean the actual concept of god is useless, or at best repetative?
This is why I find philosophy so utterly useless.
Possibly a little I suppose, but not exclusively. God as an abstraction is a very old idea. And it’s not just anything; it’s your highest value, whatever that happens to be.
@skado and I'm a religious fundamentalist who believes my god wants all heretical nonbelievers exterminated, so my highest value is a genocidal hate filled deity?
Most believers think god, or their god, is a Being of omnipotent powers. New Agers seem to think god is "energy" or the universe or some other vague pseudo scientific thing. Both of these I think are crap. But i can see what they mean by their crap. God as a value or whatever doesn't compute to me, honestly.
I know there is a bearded man in the sky. People fly around all over the world! LOL
DavidLaDeau
Level 8
Jan 18, 2020
1
Polytheist!
God defined as a word of open definition and usage, in that any person could give any usage or define it in any way, whether logical, provable, real, surreal or not.
There are some things labeled by this word that have more popularity than others. There are groups of people that give a certain definition to this word that the agree on and follow for that group. There are those that would say there is nothing in existence that this word would properly label.
There are those that do not have evidence for a reason to label anything with this word. There are those that could never know what to label with this word.
A very uncommon word for how it is used comes from Germanic origin of meaning to call or invoke and now in fact exist as a word in English spelt with the letters G, O, and D.
Word
Level 8
Jan 8, 2020
1
Whatever it is you are talking about, it is NOT God. God is a well defined concept in our culture. The only reason people keep coming up with ways to weasel word the definition is because they can't leave the basic idea behind. Clapton is not God. He is just a very good guitar player. Money is not God no matter how much it means to a person. Science is not God. God is an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful entity who controls the universe. We need to be clear.
TommyRay
Level 4
Jan 7, 2020
1
According to what authority?
You see you are writing this on the wrong site, most people on this site do not use the word god just because they don't believe in one, but mainly because they are also too honest to believe in one.
God is a word used by dishonest people, (religious) in exactly the way you describe, to give added authority, to things which do not deserve to have any authority. Most people on this site have already seen that problem and moved on past it.
Fernapple
Level 9
Jan 7, 2020
1
Call my god integrity then. And here I thought I was a non believer. Ha,ha.
Bilbobagins
Level 6
Jan 6, 2020
1
Shouldn't the photo be of Jimi Hendrix or are you following the example of European Christians who depicted their Middle Eastern son of god as a blonde blue eyed man.
Moravian
Level 8
Jan 6, 2020
1
Jimi was definitely in the running, but the photo of a bearded Clapton in the sky seemed to fit the need so I grabbed it.
Cognition: thinking, word and thought ability - logos. What greater is there? What is anything without logos?
What is any ability, movement, function, or chemical reaction with out logos? If nothing had cognition what would be or, what would be known or how known as to what is?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos, the logos was with God and was God.
Word
Level 8
Jan 6, 2020
1
Word:
@maturin1919 I find the biblical text to be a work of genius unsurpassed. As to this fred character you think the devil would be proud of, I don't know.
Word:
@maturin1919 I don't care for reading much. You should tell this Fred character of yours that Jesus is Angelic lord of host Lucifer the devil and perhaps he wouldn't be a Christian anymore.
RobertFoley
Level 6
Jan 7, 2020
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.