Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Scared of theism
Comments
-
Wicknight wrote:I suppose those are all as valid reasons to believe in God as any of the other nonsense that is posted on the Christian and Islamic forums, better than "Because the Bible says so" arguments I guess.
I would point out though that neither you "feeling" God, or the fact that emotions do exist, are evidence that God exists.
Me feeling that I look really good in my new leather pants doesn't mean I actually do. I might, but then again I might not.
As I am constantly telling theists (every second post it feels like ... of course that isn't evidence that it is every second post ...) never underestimate the minds ability to trick itself.
As I said, existence is a deep philosophical concept. In this case, existence for me is obviously non existence for you however non existence for you is not non existence for me.0 -
-
John Wine wrote:Childish.But my feelings seem to be endemic in the human race, irrespective of time, irrespective of literature.0
-
John Wine wrote:Yes you are correct about the mind's ability to trick itself. But my feelings seem to be endemic in the human race, irrespective of time, irrespective of literature.
The fact that they are not is more reason to think that the "feeling" of God is actually a trick of the human mind, since no two feelings appear to the same, just as no two people or culture are the same.John Wine wrote:In this case, existence for me is obviously non existence for you however non existence for you is not non existence for me.
Er ok... fair enough I guess ...0 -
John Wine wrote:Scofflaw, you are misunderstanding general Christianity and describing extreme fundamentalism.
The majority of Christians do not obey the Bible literally. There are parts in the Bible for example about stoning Children, I don't know any Christian who would believe this.
Er, no. You're making another huge leap. All Christians follow the Bible, don't they? If not, why would you consider yourself Christian? Hence step 1, which doesn't require a literal reading of the Bible, or any such fundamentalism - it applies equally to "love thy neighbour" as to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
Possibly you're unable to follow the logic?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
John Wine wrote:No, my belief in God derives more an innate intrinsic wonderful feeling.
It is driven more emotion not lack of Scientifuc reason.
It is not driven by ancient literature. I see that only as a good reference point on how my ancestors felt about it.
Your reasoning that your 'innate intrinsic wonderful feeling' somehow implies the existence of god is a leap way too far for me, and I would think for anyone of a rational mindset. You are by all means entitled to think and feel whatever you want and if it feels right for you well then good for you. But that doesn't make it right anywhere else outside of your own mental landscape.
As others have said many people are now coming up with all sorts of vague wishy washy definitions of 'god'. It seems god can be just about anything you want him/it to be. God has always been the cop-out answer for 'that which we do not yet understand'.
The origin of the universe has not yet been explained by science, and may not be for a long time to come. However using 'god' to fill in the blanks is just making the same mistake that everyone else ever made about unexplained phenomenon. It doesn't really explain anything as you are merely adding further complexity to the whole issue. It is more honest and prudent to simply admit 'I do not know'. And as to the origins of the universe and all it contains we may never know, though if human life survives for long enough I expect we'll probably find the answer some day, although I'll hardly be around to see it.
If there is a god, why play hide and seek? If the god of the bible really exists, why not reveal himself and end the whole debate, leaving Richard Dawkins with a big splatter of egg on his face. Surely this would be very tempting even for a supernatural deity?0 -
aidan24326 wrote:Surely this would be very tempting even for a supernatural deity?0
-
John Wine wrote:PS
5uspect, it's David Quinn not John Quinn.John Wine wrote:Just looking at some of the recent comments:
1. [Zillah] Your brain is absolutely broken and I wash my hands of you and your ridiculous conciousness.
2. [DaveMcG]
I don't think that anyone of even moderate intelligence could believe in god for the reasons you've provided
3. [5uspect]
John Wine saying god is emotion is like that tosser John Quinn...
Several atheists think they have a monopoly on reason, but this is not reason, it is intolerance and biggotted. This brings me back to the OP, why do some of you guys get so freaked out?
Sometimes, I feel you fear diversity.
You've pointed to these as examples of atheist logic. Can you explain why they are so flawed? Granted the language is often dismissive as many of these people have argues these points to death.John Wine wrote:Existence is a deep philsophical concept. Existence for me, may be non existence for you, but non existence for you does mean non existence for me.
You see comments like this are just nonsense until you put put tight definitions on your terms. This is why it is easy to dismiss the biblical god or thor or whatever as just geographically localised fairy tales resulting from the ignorance of the local tribes to the forces of nature etc. This comment and others like it are just playing with language and ideas in your head without applying such thought to anything meaningful in the world. Of course god must transcend all physical existence (or some similar nonsense) so there is no need for any of these comments to apply to the physical world. Now if this is the case its simply a matter that you made it up. Making something up is logical reasoning. You must be able to back it up.John Wine wrote:There are several other places where you do not apply strict logic to your reason. Just for example, 5uspect you say: 'on a personal whim',
how do you deduce my feelings are a whim? They are not, they are deep, instrinsic and innate. I cannot ignore or avoid them.
This seems like a straw man. Again, following Dawkins debating tactics.
I trust science, most of it anyway, but it doesn't answer important questions for me.
But every feeling we have is a personal whim of a sort. Every idea that goes through your head and mine is simply that just a personal whimsical notion. In order to make sense of our world and our existence in a philosophical sense we must decide which ideas are verifiable in the world which we are are, build upon them to discover more truths or replace them with new ideas.John Wine wrote:My view is: part of faith / theism / christianity is to question everything in the Bible.0 -
Scofflaw wrote:
Vast logical chasms, unbridgeable abysses of unreason, all happily leapt over in single bounds of assertion. Simple when you don't try to think.
cordially,
Scofflaw
But I find it difficult to understand how people can make these leaps, pulling the idea of a ancient god and some unanswered question together for absolutely no reason. I wonder is it simply a refusal to think or something more. Is it a fear of thinking or even an inability to comprehend anything else? If their delusion makes them happy or socially accepted then does the need to question become dangerous for them? Almost like a sin.0 -
Advertisement
-
5uspect wrote:But I find it difficult to understand how people can make these leaps, pulling the idea of a ancient god and some unanswered question together for absolutely no reason. I wonder is it simply a refusal to think or something more. Is it a fear of thinking or even an inability to comprehend anything else? If their delusion makes them happy or socially accepted then does the need to question become dangerous for them? Almost like a sin.
As far as I can make out, most people don't go beyond the first solution they're offered to a problem. The God one goes like this:
1. there must be a reason for everything
2. God is a reason for everything
3. therefore, God is the reason for everything
Again, one needs to overleap the problem that there needn't be a reason for everything, that God, if he doesn't exist, can't be a reason for anything, and lastly that just because a something fixes a problem doesn't mean it's actually a solution. People use this "logic" every day, for all kinds of things.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
bluewolf wrote:That still doesn't mean they're right
Bluewolf, correct, nothing means we're right. I must accept I may be wrong and you (if you are rational) must do the same.
The feelings theists experience, may be purely similar to vestigious organs.
For if we are wrong, our feelings and thoughts are incorrect and pretty much a complete waste of brain space. That is something every critical theists thinks long and serious about.
It's not as if I am blind to the counter arguments it's just that the counter arguments are not compelling enough to alter my theist position.
In fact nothing shows atheism is right. Logically, agnostism is most correct. However, few people opt for that. Very few atheists will accept that, and usually counter argue with the Dawkins Flying Teapot argument (Dawkins robbed this from Russell). With respect, I find that trivial and stupid.Wicknight wrote:Not really because then everyone would be the same religion. The fact that they are not is more reason to think that the "feeling" of God is actually a trick of the human mind, since no two feelings appear to the same, just as no two people or culture are the same.Scofflaw wrote:You're making another huge leap. All Christians follow the Bible, don't they?
If not, why would you consider yourself Christian.
I consider myself Christian, purely as it facilitates my spiritual needs. I also have a propensity towards the teaching and philosophy of JC.
I have investigated other Religions and I don't see any value add in changing.
However, I don't see me as being right and all Muslims as being wrong. Ultimately we are looking at God and using different tools to help us get there.
You're circular logic is valid for extreme fundamentalists but these are in the minority despite what Mr. Dawkins thinks. Theology has moved on.aidan24326 wrote:Your reasoning that your 'innate intrinsic wonderful feeling' somehow implies the existence of god is a leap way too far for me, and I would think for anyone of a rational mindset. You are by all means entitled to think and feel whatever you want and if it feels right for you well then good for you. But that doesn't make it right anywhere else outside of your own mental landscape
Perhaps we are, we will blame natural selection for our vestigious mindsets so.aidan24326 wrote:As others have said many people are now coming up with all sorts of vague wishy washy definitions of 'god'. It seems god can be just about anything you want him/it to be. God has always been the cop-out answer for 'that which we do not yet understand'.aidan24326 wrote:If there is a god, why play hide and seek? If the god of the bible really exists, why not reveal himself and end the whole debate, leaving Richard Dawkins with a big splatter of egg on his face. Surely this would be very tempting even for a supernatural deity?
After that, I am not sure what to say. Perhaps there is a use for Richard Dawkins, he challenges me, challenges most theists. Perhaps he is a blip in God's plan for natural selection, perhaps God has a sense of humour and finds him amusing, I do anyway. Perhaps he is there purely to eliminate fundamentalism as that is who most of he's arguments are against. Or to stiffle some debate in the science community, I know many scientists don't agree with him.
I don't know.5uspect wrote:You see comments like this are just nonsense until you put put tight definitions on your terms.5uspect wrote:But I find it difficult to understand how people can make these leaps, pulling the idea of a ancient god and some unanswered question together for absolutely no reason. I wonder is it simply a refusal to think or something more. Is it a fear of thinking or even an inability to comprehend anything else? If their delusion makes them happy or socially accepted then does the need to question become dangerous for them? Almost like a sin.
You mention the word leap, and the word delusion in reference to belief. But you must understand if we are right, there has been no delusion so it is actually a leap in your argument (again Dawkins like) to use the word.5uspect wrote:Every idea that goes through your head and mine is simply that just a personal whimsical notion. In order to make sense of our world and our existence in a philosophical sense we must decide which ideas are verifiable in the world which we are are, build upon them to discover more truths or replace them with new ideas.
As for second part, you cannot come up with the same rules for the physical and metaphysical.5uspect wrote:Why the bible? Why start there? What qualifies it as the holy book of choice?0 -
John Wine wrote:Scofflaw wrote:Er, no. You're making another huge leap. All Christians follow the Bible, don't they? If not, why would you consider yourself Christian? Hence step 1, which doesn't require a literal reading of the Bible, or any such fundamentalism - it applies equally to "love thy neighbour" as to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
Possibly you're unable to follow the logic?
There's a massive difference between following the Bible literally and using it as a reference point. The word Christianity in 2006 has become almost meaningless because it does not differentiate. I'll put it to you this way, it says in The Bible to stone Children, how many Christians do that? So how many Christians follow the Bible literally?
I consider myself Christian, purely as it facilitates my spiritual needs. I also have a propensity towards the teaching and philosophy of JC.
I have investigated other Religions and I don't see any value add in changing.
However, I don't see me as being right and all Muslims as being wrong. Ultimately we are looking at God and using different tools to help us get there.
You're circular logic is valid for extreme fundamentalists but these are in the minority despite what Mr. Dawkins thinks. Theology has moved on.
Er, OK - you can't follow the logic. You are talking about fundamentalists, and I am not.
Tell you what - here's a different version just for you:
1. say "you should do X, it's what God wants"
2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God
3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems
4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God
5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists
6. state that as God exists , we should do what He wants
7. repeat step 1
There you go - no mention of the Bible.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
1. say "you should do X, it's what God wants".
How do we decide that?2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists6. state that as God exists , we should do what He wants7. repeat step 1
Sorry does not compute.0 -
John Wine wrote:In fact nothing shows atheism is right. Logically, agnostism is most correct. However, few people opt for that.
Only when you begin the argument with the question: does a god exist? The atheist viewpoint is that any question is as trivial and and stupid as orbital china ware. The atheist/agnostic argument has been done to death so I won't restart it.John Wine wrote:Very few atheists will accept that, and usually counter argue with the Dawkins Flying Teapot argument (Dawkins robbed this from Russell). With respect, I find that trivial and stupid.
We all know who proposed the orbital teapot, Dawkins does reference it in his books like all of his sources, its not stealing. The flying spaghetti monster is just another manifestation of the same idea. The fact that you find the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun out by pluto stupid proves Russell's point perfectly. We generally accept the notion of god or consider the question of god with less skepticism than it deserves simply because it is believed by a lot of people and we are fed it from birth. Your atheism regarding Russell's tea pot is our atheism about all gods.John Wine wrote:There's a massive difference between following the Bible literally and using it as a reference point. The word Christianity in 2006 has become almost meaningless because it does not differentiate. I'll put it to you this way, it says in The Bible to stone Children, how many Christians do that? So how many Christians follow the Bible literally?
Only the hard core fundamentalists follow their book to the letter, but since their book contradicts itself multiple times they too are forced to cherry pick.
You are right that Christianity, in a theological sense, has become meaningless. As has the meaning of god. However is this true for the majority of people? I'm sure a survey of Irish people would describe god as more like the interactive, intelligent, Santa Claus like, entity than your metaphysical (I say) wishy washy, deistic, pointless notion.John Wine wrote:Theology has moved on.John Wine wrote:...I find it interesting that the majority of the human race experience a similar menatl landscape, are the majority nuts?
Perhaps we are, we will blame natural selection for our vestigious mindsets so.
Natural selection is the best way we have to describe our existence as human beings. The fact that we all share a propensity to believe suggests that we evolved such an ability, as I pointed out earlier there has been much research carried out into this. And these mindsets are quite useful for the daily survival of an organism that must often think quickly to survive. However they poorly equip us for such philosophical, rational discussions.John Wine wrote:No, If you studing various theologies you will see a common denomintor for God. He is a metaphysical concept, a creator etc.
Okay, can you clearly define god for me, I'm getting confused with your various statements about what you believe.John Wine wrote:Perhaps he is there purely to eliminate fundamentalism as that is who most of he's arguments are against. Or to stiffle some debate in the science community, I know many scientists don't agree with him.
I don't know.John Wine wrote:It's impossible to put tight definitions on existence of meta physical concepts that we can all agree on. It's subjective.
Thats the problem, its utter made up nonsenseJohn Wine wrote:It is purely because no "reason" comes even close to explaining the feelings that encompasses a belief in God. Again, I point you to LeMaitre and Copernicus, men of reason and faith.
As i've said there is plenty of psychological research into belief. I'm sure you can find it if you look.John Wine wrote:You mention the word leap, and the word delusion in reference to belief. But you must understand if we are right, there has been no delusion so it is actually a leap in your argument (again Dawkins like) to use the word.John Wine wrote:As for second part, you cannot come up with the same rules for the physical and metaphysical.John Wine wrote:Because where I am from, it is the most accesible. However, as I have stated, we must reach out to other theologies. If you feel there is a value add switching, then switch.
If switching theology is fine why not switch between hypothesis regarding the big questions of the meaning of life and universe? What makes god so special? Why not a teapot? Just because a notion without any evidence is popular it is no more true than any other. As an atheist I disregard every hypothesis until there is some evidence.0 -
5uspec wrote:If switching theology is fine why not switch between hypothesis regarding the big questions of the meaning of life and universe? What makes god so special? Why not a teapot? Just because a notion without any evidence is popular it is no more true than any other. As an atheist I disregard every hypothesis until there is some evidence.
I'm curious about the laws of the Universe, are these laws from a designer or not? For example, I am curious why the speed of light is constant no matter what speed the observer travels at.
This makes me ask the question, is their a grand designer beyond my comprehension similar to the way me on the interner is beyond my dog's comprehension.
For various other reasons, I formulate a vision and concept of God, which I belief and accept.
As for a flying teapot monster, I have no intrinsic evidence of one, I am not sure anyone else has. I don't see the flying teapot monster as helping me resolve the issue as to why is the speed of light constant?0 -
Advertisement
-
but god does not explain anything! you've essentially said that you would like god to have done it! Blaming god or saying god did it sweeps the question out of existence because you'll no doubt tell me god is outside of time and was not himself created.
You have this feeling of god, This feeling or image is probably influenced by the god of the bible and of your ancestors. A teapot is just another way of suggesting that this feeling or idea or whatever is just a manifestation of ideas plucked from various notions from human experiences. God as a father figure, indeed a male figure is the classic example. You obviously don't have a gut feeling of a midget loving, beer mountain creating flying spaghetti monster or a teapot (others might), but can you not see that your notion of a all powerful god is possibly an extension of these quite normal social realities to unanswerable (yet) questions?
Your intrinsic evidence is essentially biased, misleading and untrustworthy.0 -
5uspect wrote:but god does not explain anything! you've essentially said that you would like god to have done it! Blaming god or saying god did it sweeps the question out of existence because you'll no doubt tell me god is outside of time and was not himself created.5uspect wrote:You have this feeling of god, This feeling or image is probably influenced by the god of the bible and of your ancestors. A teapot is just another way of suggesting that this feeling or idea or whatever is just a manifestation of ideas plucked from various notions from human experiences. God as a father figure, indeed a male figure is the classic example. You obviously don't have a gut feeling of a midget loving, beer mountain creating flying spaghetti monster or a teapot (others might), but can you not see that your notion of a all powerful god is possibly an extension of these quite normal social realities to unanswerable (yet) questions?
But you can't proove that to me.Your intrinsic evidence is essentially biased, misleading and untrustworthy.0 -
John Wine wrote:1. say "you should do X, it's what God wants".
How do we decide that?2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists6. state that as God exists , we should do what He wants7. repeat step 1
Sorry does not compute.
That's genuinely interesting. You appear to have little quibble with the logic as presented, except for the bit at the end, which you think makes it "circular reasoning" (or, alternatively, suspect that I think I'm being funny)?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'll call an ambulance, far too many people are banging their heads off the wall. We'll also need a plasterer, the wall has taken some pretty serious damage.0
-
Be careful wit all that talk of head banging, Captain Capslock (TM) will surely strike!0
-
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:That's genuinely interesting. You appear to have little quibble with the logic as presented, except for the bit at the end, which you think makes it "circular reasoning" (or, alternatively, suspect that I think I'm being funny)?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
John Wine wrote:I have no innate intrinsic evidence of a flying teapot, but I do for God, so do many other people. It is either correct and well founded or it is vestigious mindset.0
-
> Who is this Captain Capslock dude anyway?
He's a frequent poster to the creationism thread in the christianity forum, where he delivers long and endlessly repetitive pro-creationist rants under the name of "JC". He using smilies to excess in messages which make clear his luxuriant ignorance of biology, physics and chemistry. And of course, much of his prose is issued in capital letters. He's a hoot and should not be taken seriously.
> What's his buzz?
Oh that it were 800 volts. DC.
.0 -
robindch wrote:> Who is this Captain Capslock dude anyway?
He's a frequent poster to the creationism thread in the christianity forum, where he delivers long and endlessly repetitive pro-creationist rants under the name of "JC". He using smilies to excess in messages which make clear his luxuriant ignorance of biology, physics and chemistry. And of course, much of his prose is issued in capital letters. He's a hoot and should not be taken seriously.
> What's his buzz?
Oh that it were 800 volts. DC.
.
To some extent, he is the reason for the Creationism thread! Also, you forgot his liberal use of the exclamation mark!!!!
A good example of the style:JC wrote:Creation Scientists ARE willing (and able) to provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF for the existence of God – and they only demand the SAME level of scientific proof for Evolution as they have for Creation.
Creation Science – is actually where God and Modern Conventional Science meet!!:D
We're still trying to get to the bottom of the Creation Science thing.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Ciaran500 wrote:If anything surely you would have a innate intrinsic belief in a higher power and would get the idea of god from people around you.
I observe and question the coincidence.0 -
I can understand looking at the way the cosmos operates, that the laws of physics etc might look (to some) like they had to have been designed. What I can't understand is how any type of "God" with characteristics could be gleaned from this notion.
Perhaps necessity is the mother of invention?0 -
John Wine wrote:It is the common denominator I am referring too.
For example, what is the common denominator between the Hewbrew religion, and the Roman religion? One has one all powerful God. The other has tons of Gods, each with their own purpose and role. You could claim the common denominator is the concept of a "god", but that doesn't really help much because the concepts are so different between the religions. You run into more trouble trying to find common ground between western religions and eastern religions. A large number of eastern religions either have lots of Gods like the Roman religions, or importantly no gods at all. It is not true that we all look to God at the end of the time. Large porportions of humanity didn't, or still don't, look to a single god, or even multiple gods
To find the actual common denominator in human religions it is better to look at the purpose that these religions provide. Nearly all religions provide answers and explinations to questions about nature, and how and why things happen. Nearly all provide answers to questions about human fears and issues, such as what happens when we die, what is morality, why do we suffer.
You see this in the Roman and Viking myths about Zeus and Thor, explaining the weather and the cycle of the seasons. And you still see this today, with fundamentalists Christians wanting genesis taught in class rooms in the US and Europe.
The common denominator between all religions is what the religion provides, which is answers to difficult questions, and through these answer a kind of peace of mind.
There are very few religions out there that provide more questions than answers, or that make believers more unhappy or confused.
This to me would suggest even stronger than religion is simply a result of the way we think, it is a by product of the human minds attempt to process the world around us in ways that are easy for us to understand. It is easier for use to understand something like the weather in terms of a person doing something, so we have Thor creating thunder storms. It is easier for us to understand emotions such as love in terms of God wanting us to get married, so we have the Bible describing just that. Etc etc
What atheists (and some theists it must be said) do is reject this type of thinking. The most easy, most comfortable answer is not automatically going to be the correct one, and that while it might feel funny and uncomfortable, not knowing something is not a reason to fill in the gaps with religion. The Vikings didn't know how thunder was created, and this troubled them so they filled in their lack of understanding with religion. Atheists reject this. They simply say "We don't know"
Even know this bluntness troubles some theists, as one can see on the Creationist thread in Christianity. Some of the Creationists seem almost shocked that atheists like myself would state that we simply don't know what happened before the Big Bang. This was seen as a failing of science, and they took the opertunity to state that what existed before the Big Bang must have been God, because science cannot tell otherwise.
It seems that there is something about human nature that just hates the idea of a blank space in our understanding of the world around us. We a greatly troubled by simply not knowing. This can spur on science to attempt to find answers, but equally it can spur on religion to make up the answers. And to some people the made up answers is as comforting as the actual answer (often more so)0 -
Wicknight wrote:It seems that there is something about human nature that just hates the idea of a blank space in our understanding of the world around us. We a greatly troubled by simply not knowing. This can spur on science to attempt to find answers, but equally it can spur on religion to make up the answers. And to some people the made up answers is as comforting as the actual answer (often more so)0
-
John Wine, you have a point about the whole 'flying teapot' thing. I am not a big fan of Dawkins using this analogy too much. To me the issue of god and the flying teapot are not quite on the same philosophical level. Near enough, but there is a difference imo. We can dismiss the orbiting teapot as nonsense because not only has no-one ever observed such a thing but it's impossible to think of any reason at all for such an object to exist.
On the other hand, the fact there's a universe here at all at least suggests the possibilty (slim as it may be) that there was some form of 'creator' or some kind of design involved. Whether we call that 'god' or not doesn't really matter, you can call it anything you want, but it's a possibility we can't completely dismiss. I don't believe it myself, but I can see why others might.
I guess the problem I have with theist thinking is the huge leap from a)belief in a creator to z)this creator, called god, taking on all manner of characteristics (mostly human ones,funny that) and pandering to all our little whims by answering our prayers and promising us a place in fairytale land if we comply with a set of vague and outdated rules and massage his ego every day. I can't completely dismiss the possibilty of some creative force for the universe, even though it's unclear as to whether there even needed to be one. Quite possibly not. But I would dismiss the latter notion of a 'god' outright, as pure nonsense.
Now whatever you say about 'theology moving on' that latter highly naieve description of god is still the one that the majority of religious people believe in. Certainly within christianity and islam, which are probably the two most widespread religions in the world. Whether you are muslim, christian, jew or whatever else merely serves to change the details a bit. But the fact that alot of people believe such a thing says absolutely nothing of it's validity or claim to truth.
Everyone used to believe the earth was flat, Galileo was threatened with execution for suggesting that earth revolved around the sun, and was not the center of the universe? How dare he suggest such a thing? Alot of people can be very stupid and very wrong alot of the time. 200 people sitting in a church on a sunday morning chanting meaningless phrases to some vague notion of a god is proof enough of that if you ask me.Wicknight wrote:To find the actual common denominator in human religions it is better to look at the purpose that these religions provide. Nearly all religions provide answers and explinations to questions about nature, and how and why things happen. Nearly all provide answers to questions about human fears and issues, such as what happens when we die, what is morality, why do we suffer.
The common denominator between all religions is what the religion provides, which is answers to difficult questions, and through these answer a kind of peace of mind.
You are quite right, and this goes some way to explaining why religion continues to flourish. The problem with religion is that while it may provide answers, these answers tend to be plain wrong more often than not, such as humanity being a few thousand years old and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, or that being gay is some kind of disease. The trouble with religion is it likes to have an opinion on everything, even where it is completely unqualified to do so. Most of the other 'answers' religion provides are unprovable (and more importanly undisprovable) nonsense with zero evidence to back them up. I am quite sure this is deliberate.Wicknight wrote:This to me would suggest even stronger than religion is simply a result of the way we think
That's exactly what it is, though very many people in the world obviously can't see that, or just refuse to. I'm no psychologist but I imagine there is some fairly powerful reward mechanism at work with religion, where people's faith is reinforced by the 'feelgood factor' that their faith/beliefs give them, and the comfort of 'knowing' that you're off to happyland when you die, and that there's a god out there taking a personal interest in your welfare (though it seems that people in certain parts of the world are very much in his bad books at the moment)Wicknight wrote:This can spur on science to attempt to find answers, but equally it can spur on religion to make up the answers. And to some people the made up answers is as comforting as the actual answer (often more so)
It seems that to alot of people the comforting answer is the only one they're interested in, whether it's made up or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can see how part of my previous post might seem contradictory. To clear that up, and pre-empt the question of why should a universe-creator be any more likely then an orbiting teapot. Well in a way you could say it isn't much more likely. However, for all we know evidence of some kind of design or a creative force might, just might, become available some day. Personally I have my doubts on that one, I think we may hit a brick wall at the big bang, science reaching it's limits if you like. Indeed big bang theory itself could turn out to be wrong.
But I still can't dismiss the idea totally. I prefer to admit that I just don't have a clue. We're only beginning to find answers, the scientific endeavour still in it's infancy, and who knows what we will yet discover should human life prosper for long enough (our longevity being far from guaranteed of course).
EDIT: For what it's worth, my own feeling on the matter is that there is probably no real beginning nor end to anything,possibly no ultimate chain of causation, no meaning, no purpose to anything, nothing but cold vast indifference. Of course my 'feeling' could be wrong, in a way I hope it is, but there seems to me to be very little evidence for me to believe anything else.
sorry if this has all rambled a bit.0 -
aidan24326 wrote:John Wine, you have a point about the whole 'flying teapot' thing. I am not a big fan of Dawkins using this analogy too much. To me the issue of god and the flying teapot are not quite on the same philosophical level. Near enough, but there is a difference imo. We can dismiss the orbiting teapot as nonsense because not only has no-one ever observed such a thing but it's impossible to think of any reason at all for such an object to exist.
Back on earth, the 'teapot orbiting the sun' is used in a very specific argument relating to the falsifiability of God argument, the "YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD DON'T EXIST - LOSER" argument, and says nothing about the probability of God or teapots or possible reasons why each may or may not exist.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot0 -
John Wine wrote:A lot to get through lads.
Bluewolf, correct, nothing means we're right. I must accept I may be wrong and you (if you are rational) must do the same.
The feelings theists experience, may be purely similar to vestigious organs.
For if we are wrong, our feelings and thoughts are incorrect and pretty much a complete waste of brain space. That is something every critical theists thinks long and serious about.
It's not as if I am blind to the counter arguments it's just that the counter arguments are not compelling enough to alter my theist position.
In fact nothing shows atheism is right. Logically, agnostism is most correct. However, few people opt for that. Very few atheists will accept that, and usually counter argue with the Dawkins Flying Teapot argument (Dawkins robbed this from Russell). With respect, I find that trivial and stupid.
I'm not here to argue for atheism, I'm here to argue against some theists' reasoning
regarding JC:He using smilies to excess in messages which make clear his luxuriant ignorance of biology, physics and chemistry0 -
John Wine wrote:Your hyphothesis is correct, if there is no God, otherwise it is in incorrect, simple as that.
No, because if there is a particular god, then all the other religions in the world that don't believe in that god are still wrong, yet they still come up with these religions.
If Christianity is the "correct" religion, and there is one God, the god of Abraham, then the Vikings were completely off with their complex hierachey of gods and godesses that were used to explain things like rain and the seasons. Likewise so were the Romans and the Greeks. And the Buddests who don't believe in a god, of Abraham or otherwise.
So my hyphothesis still holds, even if there is a god. The only way my hyphothesis is invalid is if every religion in human history actually was correct.0 -
Wicknight wrote:No, because if there is a particular god, then all the other religions in the world that don't believe in that god are still wrong, yet they still come up with these religions.0
-
John Wine wrote:What if there is no particular God as described exclusively by any particular theology, but a more generic God, which is compatable with most theologies?0
-
-
-
John Wine wrote:How would I feel, instrinsically, extrinsically?
Are you sure you are using these words in the right context?
From WikipediaIntrinsic describes a characteristic or property of some thing or action which is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence. A characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is god just a label for the feeling you have of a higher power or force? This thread is about theism (or our fear of it), so is there some sort in interactivity in your belief with this world? Does this higher power grant wishes, perform miracles or control the weather?0
-
John Wine wrote:What if there is no particular God as described exclusively by any particular theology, but a more generic God, which is compatable with most theologies?
Then these religions and their followers are still wrong because that is not what they believe.
The Greeks did not believe in one very general and abstract definition of "god", being some kind of abstract force that might control things. They believed in a series of specific gods and goddesses that had particular roles to play and were responsible for particular aspects of nature.
If such a power as your abstract god (which by the way kinda dilutes the concept of a "god" to the point where it has little meaning) actually exists then the Greeks were still completely wrong in their religious concepts, as wrong as if your god simply did not exist.
The the question is what purpose did the Greek or Hindu or Viking polytheist religions serve in their culture and view of the universe. The answer is that these religious systems provided answers to the questions about life and nature, answers which as science increased were eventually replaced with natural explanations.0 -
Well said, its a case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water here. God or gods were conjured up to explain unknowns but as these unknowns were eventually solved the comfortable notion of god was then retained regardless of its original purpose, the religion and dogma that was built around the original notion became the scaffolding that now solely supports it.0
-
5uspect wrote:Well said, its a case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water here. God or gods were conjured up to explain unknowns but as these unknowns were eventually solved the comfortable notion of god was then retained regardless of its original purpose, the religion and dogma that was built around the original notion became the scaffolding that now solely supports it.
Exactly,
For some reason some people seem to believe that the concept of gods is some how still valid independent of the long abandoned explinations for natural events these gods used to provide.
We, as humans, really should have thrown out the concept of "gods" when we threw out the supernatural explinations for natural events that these gods originally provided. But we didn't, becaues the concept of a "god" still provides some with comfortable easy answers to difficult questions, just as it did thousands of years ago for the Greeks and Vikings. That is the common denominator0 -
Wicknight wrote:If such a power as your abstract god (which by the way kinda dilutes the concept of a "god" to the point where it has little meaning) actually exists then the Greeks were still completely wrong in their religious concepts, as wrong as if your god simply did not exist.
Agreed - playing games with the definition of God is silly.
Say there is a 'God', who created the universe, but hasn't been heard from since. So God exists, but we have no soul, there is no afterlife, and he couldn't care less how we behave.
So technically, a 'God' could exist, and he'd be totally irrelevant to out lives.
The point here is that for God to be of interest to us, his existence or otherwise needs to have some consequences. A god who is *identical* (from our position) to 'A God that doesn't exist' is not at all interesting or worth spending any time considering.0 -
I think he went away. Did we beat him into submission?0
-
Advertisement
-
pH wrote:Agreed - playing games with the definition of God is silly.
Say there is a 'God', who created the universe, but hasn't been heard from since. So God exists, but we have no soul, there is no afterlife, and he couldn't care less how we behave.
So technically, a 'God' could exist, and he'd be totally irrelevant to out lives.
The point here is that for God to be of interest to us, his existence or otherwise needs to have some consequences. A god who is *identical* (from our position) to 'A God that doesn't exist' is not at all interesting or worth spending any time considering.
Hence "alatrism" - not worshipping! We can disprove any god worth worshipping, but are forced to concede the possible existence of gods not worth worshipping. That makes atheism a statement of faith, but alatrism a mere recognition of reality.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
5uspect wrote:Well said, its a case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water here. God or gods were conjured up to explain unknowns but as these unknowns were eventually solved the comfortable notion of god was then retained regardless of its original purpose, the religion and dogma that was built around the original notion became the scaffolding that now solely supports it.
You need to seperate reason from desire, otherwise your reason will be so biased, it will cease to be reason.
What cannot be avoided here is the millions and billions of sense data of God that the homosapien species experiences.
There is no doubt we (the majority) experience it, but the question is why?
Is it a vesitgious mindset or something deeper and more meaningfull?
You completly reject it is something more meaningfull, so how do you proof beyond reasonable doubt that it is not vestigious?0 -
pH wrote:Agreed - playing games with the definition of God is silly.
Say there is a 'God', who created the universe, but hasn't been heard from since. So God exists, but we have no soul, there is no afterlife, and he couldn't care less how we behave.
So technically, a 'God' could exist, and he'd be totally irrelevant to out lives.
The point here is that for God to be of interest to us, his existence or otherwise needs to have some consequences. A god who is *identical* (from our position) to 'A God that doesn't exist' is not at all interesting or worth spending any time considering.
We have a ´sense´of God but this is different to the actual ´óbject´ of God.0 -
John Wine wrote:No, that is the reason why you would like to believe Gods were conjured up.
You need to seperate reason from desire, otherwise your reason will be so biased, it will cease to be reason.Disagree, we must be flexible in our interpretation of God, otherwise we are limiting him to the limits of human understanding.0 -
John Wine wrote:Disagree, we must be flexible in our interpretation of God, otherwise we are limiting him to the limits of human understanding. I would say most of God is beyond human understanding, similar to me being beyond the understanding of my Dog.
We have a ´sense´of God but this is different to the actual ´óbject´ of God.
Since the very notion of there being a 'god' is undeniably a human construct, then it seems obvious to me that any 'interpretation' of god would necessarily be limited by the limiting constraints of the human minds that conceived of such an idea in the first place. If there really is/was a god creator of the universe or some kind of overlord, that entity would likely be something far more complex and sophisticated than any of the naieve 'gods' that we've thus far invented, with their big egos and short tempers. As for your last line about 'sense' and 'object', sounds good but unfortunately doesn't mean anything.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement