Rulationship with Reality
Image transcription: a section of a Wikipedia article titled "Relationship with Reality". It reads "From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real. [3] However," End transcription.
Image transcription: a section of a Wikipedia article titled "Relationship with Reality". It reads "From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real. [3] However," End transcription.
Discworld's Small Gods work like this.
They only gain power if you believe in them. So they stand around like a used car salesman trying to convert you
That kind of system seems ripe for a pyramid scheme.
Are you Djelibeybi?
Same for ff14 eikons. And I think the goauld in stargate?
The Ori were the bad guy that gained power from followers, the Goa’uld were just brain snakes with advanced tech.
That was it, ty
Discworld's
elvesfair folk, however, do not work like this and remain wildly powerful even as human belief in them withers and dissipates. The belief in elves at the beginning of Lords and Ladies is much akin to the belief in Om at the beginning of Small Gods. From memory, "like worshipping the shell left behind by a crustacean that has long since died". But for some reason elves maintain power in the human world whereas Om is reduced to hoping the melons in the church gardens aren't too thick-skinned.Link in case anyone's curious:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf#Reality_and_perception
Wow, they really dance around that. The belief in elves is real, champ, not the elves themselves due to that belief. This isn't a Terry Pratchett novel.
It's written that way to be as neutral as possible.
Replace "Elf" with "God" and you'll see how important it is to "dance"
There's the same amount of evidence for gods as there is for elves and orbiting teapots.
Yet gods and elves change the world and teapots are content to remain unobserved
There is absolutely zero necessity to dance around the non existance of god. There is objectively no god.
What a thing to say. It's perfectly reasonable to say that there's insufficient evidence to believe in any gods, but to state that there is no god as a matter of fact is as presumptive as saying that there objectively is.
God doesn't exist. The tooth fairy doesn't exist. Elvis Presley is dead. If you want to believe there is a possibility for any of these statements to be false, you have a questionable relationship with reality.
There is evidence to suggest that the tooth fairy isn't real–when tested, magic has consistently been shown to not exist. The only intangible forces that have been shown to act on things are gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces, none of which allows for teeth to turn into quarters. On top of that, most parents will admit that they made the tooth fairy up. It's reasonable to say that there is objectively no tooth fairy because there's evidence to suggest it can't exist.
There is evidence to suggest that Elvis Presley is dead. Here's a transcript of the medical examiner's report listing the likely cause of death as H.C.V.D. associated with ASHD. He would be 88 today, which, considering his lifestyle, would be an impressive age to reach without dying. It's reasonable to say that Elvis is definitely dead, because there's evidence to suggest he can't be alive.
There is no such evidence to suggest that there can't be a creator deity. I don't believe that there is, but I won't make a truth claim without evidence. If you wanna say that the Christian god isn't real, that's fine. There are contradictions in their holy text that show that the god in their book cannot exist. But to say that no god can exist is a truth statement that lacks evidence. Saying it just makes you look like an edgy teenager who just figured out that they're atheist. Makes you look like a fan of thunderf00t or Carl of Akkad.
Followed by:
Uh, OK.
Yes, made up. Just like deities made up in more ignorant times.
Are you seriously arguing in good faith that "god" exists as anything more than a mass delusion? And you think not believing that is "edgy"? If so, I really think we're done.
No! I'm saying that making a truth claim without evidence is necessarily irrational! I literally said that I don't believe it. There is a difference between not believing something and believing not something.
I think that centering your online persona around your lack of belief while making comments about how delusional someone must be to be religious is what's edgy.
I would counter that your pedantic hair splitting is what is truly edgy. "I don't believe in god, but I don't believe in not god" makes no semantic difference and is rather perfect fence sitting.
You can yell at an idiot on the internet, but they'll just say tldr.
Just be glad no one's talking about moon spirits in this post.
What evidence do you have to back up that claim?
I love how nobody is responding to you, because the truth is: we can’t know, but most of us are very sure whether there is a god either way. It’s nonsense to call what an atheist believes absolutely “true,” because we can’t know. I’m an atheist, but it’s just pseudoscience to suggest that we can scientifically prove that there’s no god.
Agreed and well-put. Lack of evidence cannot give creedence to a claim. It's all well and good to believe in (the absence of, or possibility of) supernatural being(s), but to state such beliefs as objective is not follow the scientific method.
Would you say that feelings, thoughts and numbers do "exist"?
Would you say that God has the same power as the number four?
There are a few crusades and jihads that point towards gods being just as meaningfully real to us as dollar values and national pride
Again, that's actions taken by people based on beliefs, not actions taken by that in which they believe.
Same goes with trading a dollar bill for goods and services. That dollar doesn't have legitimate inherent value, but it can manifest change in the world via the people that believe it does. Same goes with pride in your country/city/state/province when you see your region's flag. It isn't physically real, but the wiki never claimed that it is.
OK, how many dollars is god worth?
How many dollars is my favorite color being purple worth?
I really want to get through to you. What that wiki article is saying is that god is """real""" (with a lot of air quotes) in the same way that fiat currency has value.
Can we agree that the bills in my wallet have less physical utility than the many paper towels they could buy? I could use them for kindling, or to wipe up a small mess, but paper towels are so much better at that. And some of these bills, despite being exactly the same size and weight, and arguable worse at being kindling, are somehow worth "more" than others.
For what reason am I able to exchange those bills for many paper towels? Why can I exchange one bill for several bills of the same exact size, but with a numerically smaller number written on them? The value of money is "real" insofar as it affects how we act. I don't think there is a god, but the concept of gods has had a very real impact on the world. It is "real" in the sense that it affects people, the same way seeing a flag with a bunch of random colors can, the same way writing an extra 0 on a piece of green cotton can.
We can trade currency for goods and services because we agree to use the currency. Physical currency has an agreed-to meaning; you can't spend a dollar bill after you burn it. It's like arguing that a pound of gold being worth more than a pound of dog shit is meaningless.
Comparing God to feelings is ridiculous. We can observe and induce feelings by manipulating the brain physically or chemically.
The idea of a god has no power. The idea did not create the universe, cannot perform miracles, cannot observe or act. God is as real as the number four; it's an idea that may have utility, but lacks any power in and of itself.
duendes