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.

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, that’s actions taken by people based on beliefs, not actions taken by that in which they believe.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              We can trade currency for goods and services because we agree to use the currency.

              Yes. The value of money is real to us, even though it doesn’t have any intrinsic value

              It’s like arguing that a pound of gold being worth more than a pound of dog shit is meaningless.

              No. Gold has more intrinsic value than dog shit. It’s far more limited, one can’t simply print more of it. It’s shiny, so I can easily make jewelry to adorn myself. I could maybe make a weapon with which to defend myself from potential attackers, though there are better materials than that. It’s also useful in electronics, so I can trade it to electronics crafters in exchange for some of the electronics they craft.

              The idea of a god has no power.

              The idea of god has power in the same way that paper money has value. It drives many people to do many things, despite being intangible and unreal.

              The idea did not create the universe, cannot perform miracles, cannot observe or act.

              I never claimed that it did. I have claimed many times in this thread that I don’t think it did. I would like literally anyone to acknowledge that I’m not trying to argue that god exists. Please, someone, acknowledge that I am actually a damn atheist. Just respond this comment with “I’m actually reading your comments and processing them, even if I disagree with what you’re saying.”

              God is as real as the number four; it’s an idea that may have utility, but lacks any power in and of itself.

              Yes. That’s essentially what the article we’re discussing says. Nobody has tried to insinuate that god is physically real, only that the concept is really a concept, which has an impact on the people who believe it. I want to be clear here. I’m not saying there is a god consciously affecting those who believe in it. I’m saying that for those who believe in it, that belief has a real effect on them.