|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:05 am Post subject: 721 |
 |
|
| I don't get the point of the quote ... the whole "emotional" thing. I mean, I understand being "a creature of emotion as well as of reason", but I can discuss reason and assess it's validity. What would it mean to say "emotionally, I am a Darwinist"? It doesn't make sense to me. Is it any different to say "emotionally, I am an atheist"? Are emotions good guides in deciding matters of facts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:33 am Post subject: 722 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Are emotions good guides in deciding matters of facts? |
It seems that to Asimov, there isn't really a factual reason to prefer atheism to agnostism (and presumably to other religious options as well); he would claim that while there's no scientific evidence for the presence of a God, there's no scientific evidence for the absence of a God either. I would guess that he would claim that the presence or absence of a God is untestable.
In the total absence of evidence, there are many options on how to continue. Asimov is admitting that he has irrationally chosen a specific answer.
I think there are other reasonable options that Asimov could have taken, but it's a question of whether he should be saying "Screw it, the answer is no", "Screw it, the question is badly stated", or "Screw it, I don't care". He's decided "Screw it, the answer is no." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: 723 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:05 pm Post subject: 725 |
|
|
I won't make a judgement call either way on that. However, what disturbs me is that 40% of Americans still believe in Creationism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html
I have no trouble if someone believes in Genesis being a metaphoric truth -- it actually works pretty well on that score. But I'm sorry, if you believe in a literal interpretation, that the universe was created in a literal seven days some 10000 ish years ago, that's just an intelligence test and you've failed. According to the above poll, that's 40% of Americans. No WONDER they're dumb enough to believe in trickle down economics, global warming is a hoax, and true anarchy might actually work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject: 726 |
|
|
| How long is a pre-Sun day anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: 727 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| How long is a pre-Sun day anyway? |
Amen.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:40 pm Post subject: 728 |
|
|
I guess this is as good an excuse as any.
| George Carlin wrote: |
| Think how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half the population are more stupid than that. |
You think that that statistic about Creationism bothers you. It's nothing on how much it bothers me. 
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:44 pm Post subject: 729 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| ...the universe was created in a literal seven days some 10000 ish years ago... |
It was more like 6,000 years ago. Get your math right.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:18 pm Post subject: 730 |
|
|
| About 24¼ years ago for those living on Pluto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:26 am Post subject: 731 |
|
|
I'd just like to announce that I have nothing left to argue about with atheists. I am not one myself, but when it comes to rational argument, the reasonable atheist has the advantage over the reasonable theist. By the simple fact that the atheist, from tendency and habit, is only willing to credit as true, that which is safe to assume is true, his or her chances of being sound in the argument are dramatically increased. Atheists are more reliable arguers than theists, and I often find myself more sensible taking the atheist side of many arguments.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:51 am Post subject: 732 |
|
|
That's because the correct pro-theist argument is: "I choose to believe in spite of the lack of direct, tangible evidence; that's what faith is all about. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to believe."
I can respect this argument, and have no defense against it.
When I observe the (relatively few, IMHO) people for whom their belief gives them a great comfort and joy, I do sometimes feel that perhaps I am missing out on something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:59 am Post subject: 733 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| When I observe the (relatively few, IMHO) people for whom their belief gives them a great comfort and joy, I do sometimes feel that perhaps I am missing out on something. |
Many people benefit from an external motivation for their actions, an explanation for what happens when they die, a description of their place in the world, and a community to belong to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: 734 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
...the correct pro-theist argument is: "I choose to believe in spite of the lack of direct, tangible evidence; that's what faith is all about. I feel sorry for you that you are unable to believe."
I can respect this argument, and have no defense against it. |
That's because it's not an argument. It's just someone expressing how they feel. I no longer believe there is a correct pro-theist argument. There may be plenty of correct anti-strong-atheist arguments, though. To me, all arguments lead to weak atheism.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:43 am Post subject: 735 |
|
|
I have a question for strong atheists. Strong athiests, as I understand the term, are those who believe a god's existence is highly unlikely. This is opposed to weak atheists, who simply just don't have a belief in a god. Maybe there are no strong atheists here, in which case, this is likely to be a very short discussion. But if there are, I am very curious about what the reasoning is which supports that position. If a god exists, a theist's position could be justified by a direct apprehension/experience of the god, regardless of whether or not it is communicable. But whether a god exists or not, I don't understand how the strong athiest position can be justified. It seems to me the lack of evidence of a god's existence is only sufficient to assume a position of weak atheism.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:32 am Post subject: 736 |
|
|
I guess it's the same argument for the existence of pink unicorns.
It's not just that there is no evidence for it, but that the creation of the idea of it is also suspect.
People might argue that there are no fresh-water creatures currently in existence larger than an elephant, simply because they haven't seen one. There is a possibility that they're wrong, but so far it seems very plausible. After all, where would they hide.
However people can be very certain that there are no freshwater mermaids. Even though they are smaller and easier to hide.
It's not just that there is no evidence, but that it's also highly implausible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DejMar
(Possibly a robot)
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:26 am Post subject: 737 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
...the universe was created in a literal seven days some 10000 ish years ago...
|
It was more like 6,000 years ago. Get your math right. |
It is incorrect to say the Scriptures are to be interpreted literally. The Scriptures, itself, indicates it is a mixture of figurative, poetic and historical facts. Scholars note that the early texts of Genesis were the compilation of more than one source. The major two sources of the Judaic-Christian Scriptures are the Yahwist and Elohimist sources. These two sources are why there are two different Genesis stories of the creation of man. The Yahwist source, which often used numerology's mystical significance, is why there are seven days in the creation story. Of course, a literalist would say the mystical significance to the number seven comes from the number of days of creation; but, which actually occured first, is another not fully answerable chicken-versus-egg question. Now, properly interpreted, numerology does play a part in prophesy. Which, itself, attests to the veracity of Scripture. Not in the literal interpretations, but in the revelation of the mysteries. "Time" is a procreational product of the mind of man, even though what may be calculated and based upon God's creation - i.e., the rotation of the Earth and its revolution about the Sun. Thus, there can be more than one valid interpretation of the length of creation. The Universe can, in fact, be billions of years old, and also be the approximate 6000 years of age, numerologically speaking.
I have yet to hear any valid arguments of the non-existance of God from anyone. As to an argument for the existance of God, it is more than faith. As, just as the Scriptures have foretold, the truth is revealed to those who have ears. I thank the Lord that he has opened mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:59 pm Post subject: 738 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
I guess it's the same argument for the existence of pink unicorns.
It's not just that there is no evidence for it, but that the creation of the idea of it is also suspect.
People might argue that there are no fresh-water creatures currently in existence larger than an elephant, simply because they haven't seen one. There is a possibility that they're wrong, but so far it seems very plausible. After all, where would they hide.
However people can be very certain that there are no freshwater mermaids. Even though they are smaller and easier to hide.
It's not just that there is no evidence, but that it's also highly implausible. |
The difference between a god and freshwater mermaids, pink unicorns, vastly giant sea creatures, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. is that all those things are defined with (scientifically) measurable attributes. A god is not. If someone tells you there's a pink unicorn in his living room, you can look around in his living room and if you don't see one, you can reasonably suspect what he's saying. If someone tells you that God is with him, what can you possibly do to investigate the claim, to tip the scale towards probably true or probably false? It seems to me there's no logical place to go but straight down the middle to "maybe, maybe not".
What is suspect about the idea of a god?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: 739 |
|
|
| I can't prove that there aren't exactly eleven god who each want me to sacrifice a chipmunk on the first Friday of each month while I dance around in pink leotards and a Chicago Cubs baseball cap and sing songs from Broadway musicals. Since the gods are undetectable, would the logical thing to do be to go straight down the middle and say "maybe, maybe not"? Should I start rounding my chipmunks just in case? Is rounding up chipmunks any more absurd than kneeling in front of a cross or bowing toward Mecca? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:14 pm Post subject: 740 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| If someone tells you there's a pink unicorn in his living room, you can look around in his living room and if you don't see one, you can reasonably suspect what he's saying. |
Silly Bravehat: it's an invisible intangible pink unicorn that recently took a bath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: 741 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| Silly Bravehat: it's an invisible intangible pink unicorn that recently took a bath. |
But see, pink, by definition, implies visible, and that's my point.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:28 pm Post subject: 742 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I can't prove that there aren't exactly eleven god who each want me to sacrifice a chipmunk on the first Friday of each month while I dance around in pink leotards and a Chicago Cubs baseball cap and sing songs from Broadway musicals. Since the gods are undetectable, would the logical thing to do be to go straight down the middle and say "maybe, maybe not"? |
If someone else swears they exist, yes. What would make such a person suspicious?
| Chuck wrote: |
| Should I start rounding my chipmunks just in case? Is rounding up chipmunks any more absurd than kneeling in front of a cross or bowing toward Mecca? |
Depends on whether or not you believe in both gods equally. If you do, then neither activity is absurd. If you don't, then both are. If you believe in one of those gods but not the other, than one is absurd and one isn't.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: 743 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Thok wrote: |
| Silly Bravehat: it's an invisible intangible pink unicorn that recently took a bath. |
But see, pink, by definition, implies visible, and that's my point. |
It's pink: its just choosing to be invisible right now. And for the next 80 years. It will become visible sometime after you die and stay that way for a few thousand years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:37 pm Post subject: 744 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| It's pink: its just choosing to be invisible right now. And for the next 80 years. It will become visible sometime after you die and stay that way for a few thousand years. |
Well, then Horn's Up!, or whatever celebratory phrase is customary to use in your religion.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:20 pm Post subject: 745 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I can't prove that there aren't exactly eleven god who each want me to sacrifice a chipmunk on the first Friday of each month while I dance around in pink leotards and a Chicago Cubs baseball cap and sing songs from Broadway musicals. Since the gods are undetectable, would the logical thing to do be to go straight down the middle and say "maybe, maybe not"? |
If someone else swears they exist, yes. What would make such a person suspicious? |
How about the billions of people who would swear that the chipmunk gods don't exist but that their own one or more true gods do?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Should I start rounding my chipmunks just in case? Is rounding up chipmunks any more absurd than kneeling in front of a cross or bowing toward Mecca? |
Depends on whether or not you believe in both gods equally. If you do, then neither activity is absurd. If you don't, then both are. If you believe in one of those gods but not the other, than one is absurd and one isn't. |
But I don't know whether or not the chipmunk gods are real. I just made them up. Is it reasonable to say "maybe, maybe not" about anything that anyone makes up as long as I can't prove it's true or false? Are the chipmunk gods just as likely to be real as any other gods? Is it absurd to round up the chipmunks and not believe Jesus died for my sins or to believe that Jesus died for my sins and not round up the chipmunks? Doing one but not the other seems inconsistent since neither can be proven beneficial or worthless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:03 pm Post subject: 746 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| How about the billions of people who would swear that the chipmunk gods don't exist but that their own one or more true gods do? |
Yes. "Maybe, Maybe not".
Unless there's a reason to suspect them in particular, I don't think the fact that their belief contradicts other people's beliefs makes the belief itself suspicious. Certainly, the fact that the rituals might seem ridiculous to an outsider does not have any bearing on whether the god who supposedly prescribed it exists or not. An outsider doesn't understand what's inside, so of course many inside processes are bound to seem ridiculous to him or her. The appearance of absurdity does not tip the scale in either direction.
| Chuck wrote: |
| But I don't know whether or not the chipmunk gods are real. I just made them up. |
Well, having admitted that you just made them up tips the scale for me largely toward the "doesn't exist" end of the scale (it was already on that end of the scale anyway, because the context of your stating it was obvious). But if you went around swearing it was true and didn't admit that you made it up, I would be forced to conclude "maybe, maybe not".
| Chuck wrote: |
Is it reasonable to say "maybe, maybe not" about anything that anyone makes up as long as I can't prove it's true or false? |
If you know they made it up, no. If you don't know whether or not they made it up, and you have no objective standard to weigh their claim against, then yes. It's not just reasonable to say "maybe, maybe not", it really seems like the only thing you can say.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Are the chipmunk gods just as likely to be real as any other gods? |
Only if the chipmunk gods are actually worshipped. Not just as hypothetical made up gods, no.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Is it absurd to round up the chipmunks and not believe Jesus died for my sins or to believe that Jesus died for my sins and not round up the chipmunks? Doing one but not the other seems inconsistent since neither can be proven beneficial or worthless. |
Again, it depends what you actually believe. Since you seem to not believe either, then for you both would be absurd, I suppose. That's irrelevant anyway. The point is that if you have scale where one side says a god exists (be it chipmunk, Christian, whatever) and the other side says no god exists, there is no unit of weight measurement to tip it.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:04 am Post subject: 747 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| How about the billions of people who would swear that the chipmunk gods don't exist but that their own one or more true gods do? |
Yes. "Maybe, Maybe not".
Unless there's a reason to suspect them in particular, I don't think the fact that their belief contradicts other people's beliefs makes the belief itself suspicious. Certainly, the fact that the rituals might seem ridiculous to an outsider does not have any bearing on whether the god who supposedly prescribed it exists or not. An outsider doesn't understand what's inside, so of course many inside processes are bound to seem ridiculous to him or her. The appearance of absurdity does not tip the scale in either direction.
|
Shouldn't any set of beliefs be suspicious if they can't all be true and none at all can be demonstrated to be true?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| But I don't know whether or not the chipmunk gods are real. I just made them up. |
Well, having admitted that you just made them up tips the scale for me largely toward the "doesn't exist" end of the scale (it was already on that end of the scale anyway, because the context of your stating it was obvious). But if you went around swearing it was true and didn't admit that you made it up, I would be forced to conclude "maybe, maybe not".
|
I don't see how confessing to making up gods makes them any less real. Maybe my posts are inspired by chipmunk god #4. That makes them at least as believable as the inspired bible god, doesn't it? Also, people have been making up and abandoning gods for thousands of years. Shouldn't that tip the scale toward "maybe, probably not"?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
Is it reasonable to say "maybe, maybe not" about anything that anyone makes up as long as I can't prove it's true or false? |
If you know they made it up, no. If you don't know whether or not they made it up, and you have no objective standard to weigh their claim against, then yes. It's not just reasonable to say "maybe, maybe not", it really seems like the only thing you can say.
|
Aren't at least most gods made up? If only one is real then at least nearly every god ever believed in was made up. Why accept any of them at all?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Are the chipmunk gods just as likely to be real as any other gods? |
Only if the chipmunk gods are actually worshipped. Not just as hypothetical made up gods, no.
|
Why do worshipers make a god more real? Didn't the Christian god exist before there were worshipers?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Is it absurd to round up the chipmunks and not believe Jesus died for my sins or to believe that Jesus died for my sins and not round up the chipmunks? Doing one but not the other seems inconsistent since neither can be proven beneficial or worthless. |
Again, it depends what you actually believe. Since you seem to not believe either, then for you both would be absurd, I suppose. That's irrelevant anyway. The point is that if you have scale where one side says a god exists (be it chipmunk, Christian, whatever) and the other side says no god exists, there is no unit of weight measurement to tip it. |
I'm not aware of any rule that only one god or one set of gods can exist. In fact, when there's one of something there are usually more. There a lots of protons, atoms, molecules, grains of sand, pebbles, trees, hills, mountains, asteroids, planets, stars. and galaxies. Everywhere and at all size scales, when there's one of something we generally see a lot of time. It seems most likely that if there's a god, there are plenty of them. Believing in one undetectable god and not another seems inconsistent. Isn't it desirable to have consistent beliefs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:30 am Post subject: 748 |
|
|
BraveHat, you speak of 'God' as if that is a single concept to be believed or not. But you've got one, the Ayatollah has another, the Wiccans have a bunch more, etc. Which one is it I am not believing in? What makes you so sure you've stumbled on to the one correct one?
I won't accuse you, but I have certainly met plenty of Christians who look upon the Native American religions, or the ancient Greek religions, with a certain condescension. "Those religions were," my Christian friends will explain, "just an ignorant people's way to make sense of the world around them -- the sun, moon, and stars; the behavior of animals; etc." While I attempt to avoid the condescension, I see your description of God as pretty much the same thing. This is what makes me a strong atheist, to use your terminology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:09 am Post subject: 749 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Shouldn't any set of beliefs be suspicious if they can't all be true and none at all can be demonstrated to be true? |
Why? I can see why a belief or set of beliefs should be suspicious if they contradict what can be demonstrated to be true, but why should we suspect a belief just because it contradicts another belief? Obviously, if something contradicts what I believe, I might be suspicious of it on a subjective level. But I certainly can't do it objectively. I can't objectively say it's unlikely to be true, because my only basis is simply that I don't believe it.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I don't see how confessing to making up gods makes them any less real. Maybe my posts are inspired by chipmunk god #4. That makes them at least as believable as the inspired bible god, doesn't it? |
Good point. Maybe you only think you're making it up, but it's really chipmunk god #4 working through you. So I take back what I said about your confession tipping the scale. I doesn't tip the scale, because there is no scale in this case. Since the idea of the chipmunk gods is not being presented to me as a serious claim, there's really no occasion for me to even consider it's truth value. If it were presented to me that way, there'd be nothing to tip the scale.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Also, people have been making up and abandoning gods for thousands of years. Shouldn't that tip the scale toward "maybe, probably not"? |
No. The religious activity we have observed throughout history can just as easily be attributed to a people trying (and failing) to deal with real gods, as it could be to people making up and abandoning said gods. Why is the latter more likely than the former?
| Chuck wrote: |
| Aren't at least most gods made up? |
Not of necessity.
| Chuck wrote: |
| If only one is real then at least nearly every god ever believed in was made up. |
Where am I saying only one is real?
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why accept any of them at all? |
I'm not asking about acceptance, I'm asking about rejection. Why reject any of them at all? Accept or reject is not an exclusive disjunction. The third option is "maybe, maybe not".
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why do worshipers make a god more real? |
They don't. They give occasion to consider a god's existence.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Didn't the Christian god exist before there were worshipers? |
If the Christian God exists, then yes, by Christian doctrine, he existed forever, and therefore, before there were worshippers. However, it wasn't until there were worshippers, that anyone had to choose between accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgement on the idea.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I'm not aware of any rule that only one god or one set of gods can exist. In fact, when there's one of something there are usually more. There a lots of protons, atoms, molecules, grains of sand, pebbles, trees, hills, mountains, asteroids, planets, stars. and galaxies. Everywhere and at all size scales, when there's one of something we generally see a lot of time. It seems most likely that if there's a god, there are plenty of them. Believing in one undetectable god and not another seems inconsistent. Isn't it desirable to have consistent beliefs? |
My question has nothing to do with monotheism. "A god exists" does not imply that only one god exists. It implies that at least one god exists. My question is about a god or god(s) existing vs a god or god(s) not existing. And how there's no reasonable way to tell, or at least there doesn't seem to be.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:39 am Post subject: 750 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| BraveHat, you speak of 'God' as if that is a single concept to be believed or not. But you've got one, the Ayatollah has another, the Wiccans have a bunch more, etc. Which one is it I am not believing in? |
I don't know. I think you said you don't believe in any of them. I'll just assume that's true, then.
| Zag wrote: |
| What makes you so sure you've stumbled on to the one correct one? |
Nothing. Or at least nothing I can explain. I just believe that the one I believe in is real. I don't believe everything people say I'm supposed to believe about Him, but I do believe some things, and other things I can see how they would make sense, without fully believing or disbelieving them. And I have no opinion about other gods, especially whether they are correct or not.
| Zag wrote: |
| I won't accuse you, but I have certainly met plenty of Christians who look upon the Native American religions, or the ancient Greek religions, with a certain condescension. "Those religions were," my Christian friends will explain, "just an ignorant people's way to make sense of the world around them -- the sun, moon, and stars; the behavior of animals; etc." While I attempt to avoid the condescension, I see your description of God as pretty much the same thing. This is what makes me a strong atheist, to use your terminology. |
But that only defines you as a strong atheist. The fact that you positively believe that all of it in it's entirety is created by people. It doesn't explain why you believe that. The fact that some Christians are hypocrites does not support your position. Surely, you must know some Christians who don't condescend other faiths? (well, I like to think of myself as one, anyway)
And just as an FYI, this isn't my terminology. I used to call people who believed God doesn't exist Atheists, people who believed God exists Theists, and people on the fence Agnostics. Then I did research and found out that apparently more people are using different terminology. Agnostic apparently means someone who believes there is no way to know if God exists, and Atheist means anyone who lacks a belief in a god. There terms Weak Atheist and Strong Atheist replaced what I was calling Agnostic and Atheist respectively. Believe me, I much prefer the old way, but I don't want to use terminology incorrectly.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: 751 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Shouldn't any set of beliefs be suspicious if they can't all be true and none at all can be demonstrated to be true? |
Why? I can see why a belief or set of beliefs should be suspicious if they contradict what can be demonstrated to be true, but why should we suspect a belief just because it contradicts another belief? Obviously, if something contradicts what I believe, I might be suspicious of it on a subjective level. But I certainly can't do it objectively. I can't objectively say it's unlikely to be true, because my only basis is simply that I don't believe it.
|
If ten different people claim a different one true god then at most one can be correct. They might all be wrong. If I know nothing of the gods myself, shouldn't I suspect that person #1 is wrong when he tells me about his god since I know that at least 90% of the people claiming a one true god are wrong?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| I don't see how confessing to making up gods makes them any less real. Maybe my posts are inspired by chipmunk god #4. That makes them at least as believable as the inspired bible god, doesn't it? |
Good point. Maybe you only think you're making it up, but it's really chipmunk god #4 working through you. So I take back what I said about your confession tipping the scale. I doesn't tip the scale, because there is no scale in this case. Since the idea of the chipmunk gods is not being presented to me as a serious claim, there's really no occasion for me to even consider it's truth value. If it were presented to me that way, there'd be nothing to tip the scale.
|
I think the chipmunk gods are as serious a claim as the Christian god. People wrote about the Christian god. I wrote about the chipmunk gods. The people who wrote about the Christian god might have been inspired by him. I don't know. I might have been inspired by chipmunk god #4. I don't know. I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two god theories. The chipmunk god theory might even be more likely since it doesn't rule out other gods. I suspect both have just been made up but can't prove either is untrue.
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Also, people have been making up and abandoning gods for thousands of years. Shouldn't that tip the scale toward "maybe, probably not"? |
No. The religious activity we have observed throughout history can just as easily be attributed to a people trying (and failing) to deal with real gods, as it could be to people making up and abandoning said gods. Why is the latter more likely than the former?
|
No real gods have ever been found. All we see are abandoned gods and a few that people still cling to that haven't been found. There doesn't appear to be any progress toward real gods Gains in knowledge seem to move away from them
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Aren't at least most gods made up? |
Not of necessity.
|
Then how do we know about them?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If only one is real then at least nearly every god ever believed in was made up. |
Where am I saying only one is real?
|
Most people seem to believe only in their own gods. Do you believe in a great many?
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why accept any of them at all? |
I'm not asking about acceptance, I'm asking about rejection. Why reject any of them at all? Accept or reject is not an exclusive disjunction. The third option is "maybe, maybe not"
|
The reasons for believing in them have disappeard, like with rain gods and volcano gods. Shouldn't we reject a god that makes it rain when when other causes are observed to cause rain? Should we keep saying "maybe, maybe not" to the idea that a chariot hauls the sun across the sky?
| Quote: |
.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why do worshipers make a god more real? |
They don't. They give occasion to consider a god's existence.
|
OK, I've considered it and see no reason to believe it.
| Quote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Didn't the Christian god exist before there were worshipers? |
If the Christian God exists, then yes, by Christian doctrine, he existed forever, and therefore, before there were worshippers. However, it wasn't until there were worshippers, that anyone had to choose between accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgement on the idea.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I'm not aware of any rule that only one god or one set of gods can exist. In fact, when there's one of something there are usually more. There a lots of protons, atoms, molecules, grains of sand, pebbles, trees, hills, mountains, asteroids, planets, stars. and galaxies. Everywhere and at all size scales, when there's one of something we generally see a lot of time. It seems most likely that if there's a god, there are plenty of them. Believing in one undetectable god and not another seems inconsistent. Isn't it desirable to have consistent beliefs? |
My question has nothing to do with monotheism. "A god exists" does not imply that only one god exists. It implies that at least one god exists. My question is about a god or god(s) existing vs a god or god(s) not existing. And how there's no reasonable way to tell, or at least there doesn't seem to be. |
Since there seems to be no reasonable way to tell. is it rational for people to pretend to know with 100% certainty that their own gods exist and that they know exactly what their own gods want of them? Or are most religious people of the world irrational?
Does tne "maybe, maybe not" rule apply to things other than gods? If someone proposes that there's an inivisble bigfoot at every intersection and it steps aside so cars and people can pass, is the best answer "maybe, maybe not"? Is Harry Potter and his whole magical society actually real? Is the answer "maybe, maybe not"? Do all parents molest all of their children and most of us mentally block it out? Maybe, maybe not? Is nothing ridiculous enough just to be ruled out due to lack of evidence that it's true? I think gods are as likely to exist as the Harry Potter world. I can't disprove either but I'd be very surpised if any gods or wizards turned out to be real. I don't know if that makes me a strong atheist. Some definitions of strong atheists insist on 100% certainty that there are no gods and I can't claim that. I probably come pretty close, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:22 pm Post subject: 752 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| If ten different people claim a different one true god then at most one can be correct. They might all be wrong. If I know nothing of the gods myself, shouldn't I suspect that person #1 is wrong when he tells me about his god since I know that at least 90% of the people claiming a one true god are wrong? |
No. Since you know nothing of the gods, you don't know whether or not the god of person #1 is on an even probability scale with the others.
For example, if I roll a die, it's unlikely that 3 will come up. But if someone else rolls a die and tells me quite confidently that a 3 will come up, immediately I'm thinking there may be other factors involved that would render my even-distribution scale ineffective. There might be a magnet in the die or he might have a remote control for it or there might be some kind of marking on the die that will react with where ever he rolls it to turn up the 3 or maybe all the non-3 number wash off easily to reveal a three and he dowses the die with the wash or some crazy trick like that. Or maybe he's just very skilled at tossing the die in such a way that he can get the number he wants to come up. The possibilities are infinite. Or he may just be using the same scale as I am and hoping to get lucky, rather than look ridiculous. In any case, that fact that he's appears confident the 3 will come up gives me reason to suspect my scale of probability may not be useful.
Likewise, if you pick any one of those believers, and have no idea what the basis of their confidence is, you can't know what scale of probability to use, and I don't see how there could even be one.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I think the chipmunk gods are as serious a claim as the Christian god. People wrote about the Christian god. I wrote about the chipmunk gods. The people who wrote about the Christian god might have been inspired by him. I don't know. I might have been inspired by chipmunk god #4. I don't know. I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two god theories. The chipmunk god theory might even be more likely since it doesn't rule out other gods. I suspect both have just been made up but can't prove either is untrue. |
Because of the context in which you wrote about the chipmunk gods, there's nothing to reasonably give me the impression that you or anyone else actually believe in the chipmunk gods. That's what I meant by "serious."
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| No. The religious activity we have observed throughout history can just as easily be attributed to a people trying (and failing) to deal with real gods, as it could be to people making up and abandoning said gods. Why is the latter more likely than the former? |
No real gods have ever been found. All we see are abandoned gods and a few that people still cling to that haven't been found. |
As I wrote above, that's just one way of looking at it, no more likely than the other way.
| Chuck wrote: |
| There doesn't appear to be any progress toward real gods Gains in knowledge seem to move away from them |
And what gives the impression that gains in knowledge are moving away from them?
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Aren't at least most gods made up? |
Not of necessity. |
Then how do we know about them? |
I don't follow your question. Gods aren't necessarily made up, therefore there's no way to know about them?
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Where am I saying only one is real? |
Most people seem to believe only in their own gods. Do you believe in a great many? |
I only believe in one. But that doesn't mean, objectively, that others aren't real, or that the one I believe in is real. I don't see how my beliefs about God are even relevant to this conversation.
| Chuck wrote: |
| The reasons for believing in them have disappeard, like with rain gods and volcano gods. Shouldn't we reject a god that makes it rain when when other causes are observed to cause rain? |
Why? Should I reject the idea that your consciousness exists because everything your body does can be explained by bio-chemical processes?
| Chuck wrote: |
| Should we keep saying "maybe, maybe not" to the idea that a chariot hauls the sun across the sky? |
A physical chariot, no. That has measurable attributes which can be detected. If the chariot is metaphorical, yes.
| Chuck wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why do worshipers make a god more real? |
They don't. They give occasion to consider a god's existence. |
OK, I've considered it and see no reason to believe it. |
Hence, "maybe not"
| Chuck wrote: |
| Since there seems to be no reasonable way to tell. is it rational for people to pretend to know with 100% certainty that their own gods exist and that they know exactly what their own gods want of them? Or are most religious people of the world irrational? |
Here's just my take on it. Everyone is partly rational and partly irrational. I think most of what really drives us in life is not susceptible to rational consideration. Nonreligious people are no different than religious people in this respect. The only difference, I think, is that religious people don't rely as heavily on their rationality to make big decisions. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Our intellect can often get in the way of vital emotional needs.
| Chuck wrote: |
| Does tne "maybe, maybe not" rule apply to things other than gods? |
It's generally the only real world application of it. I've never heard of someone claiming any of the following....
| Chuck wrote: |
| If someone proposes that there's an inivisble bigfoot at every intersection and it steps aside so cars and people can pass, is the best answer "maybe, maybe not"? Is Harry Potter and his whole magical society actually real? Is the answer "maybe, maybe not"? Do all parents molest all of their children and most of us mentally block it out? Maybe, maybe not? Is nothing ridiculous enough just to be ruled out due to lack of evidence that it's true? |
Not on the strength of lack of evidence alone, no. But all those examples you gave are not anything I've been presented with a serious belief. So there's no reason to respond to them with "maybe, maybe not". If someone really believes any or all of them, then unkown factors are now implied, and yes the only reasonable response, unless there is evidence against it, is "maybe, maybe not".
| Chuck wrote: |
| I think gods are as likely to exist as the Harry Potter world. I can't disprove either but I'd be very surpised if any gods or wizards turned out to be real. I don't know if that makes me a strong atheist. Some definitions of strong atheists insist on 100% certainty that there are no gods and I can't claim that. I probably come pretty close, though. |
I don't think there is anyone who fits that definition. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim 100% certainty. Maybe Victor Stenger?
I just don't see how, given that at least one person believes sincerely in the existence of a god, and that there is no evidence against the god's existence, that there can be any sound reasonable response other than "maybe, maybe not".
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:06 pm Post subject: 753 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| The reasons for believing in them have disappeard, like with rain gods and volcano gods. Shouldn't we reject a god that makes it rain when when other causes are observed to cause rain? |
Why? Should I reject the idea that your consciousness exists because everything your body does can be explained by bio-chemical processes?
|
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elethiomel
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: 754 |
|
|
You should probably reject the idea that human consciousness is the result of something other than biochemical processes, yes. Not sure if that is what you're asking, though.
Is that idea closely linked to your belief in God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: 755 |
|
|
| Elethiomel wrote: |
| You should probably reject the idea that human consciousness is the result of something other than biochemical processes, yes. Not sure if that is what you're asking, though. |
I'm not, but why should I reject it? Is there evidence that consciousness is soley the result of biological processes? How would anyone ever be able to measure that?
| Elethiornel wrote: |
Is that idea closely linked to your belief in God? |
I don't think so. My belief in God is very unsusceptible to my own reasoning. It can't explain it without using unscientific phrases like "it makes sense to my soul."
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:56 pm Post subject: 756 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I don't think so. My belief in God is very unsusceptible to my own reasoning. It can't explain it without using unscientific phrases like "it makes sense to my soul." |
That's just the chemicals and nerve cells reacting. What do you really feel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: 757 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| I don't think so. My belief in God is very unsusceptible to my own reasoning. It can't explain it without using unscientific phrases like "it makes sense to my soul." |
That's just the chemicals and nerve cells reacting. What do you really feel? |
I'm not sure I understand the question. I feel a lot of things...fear, guilt, hope, doubt, excitement, euphoria, calm....? What are you asking/implying?
If everything I feel or do can be entirely reduced to chemicals and nerve cells reacting, then why is it important what I feel?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elethiomel
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:56 pm Post subject: 758 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Is there evidence that consciousness is soley the result of biological processes? How would anyone ever be able to measure that? |
The right question to ask is: Do we need to suppose anything more in order to explain what we can observe? As for measurements... this is not a question that is unapproachable by empirical science, even if the answer is not fully understood yet.
Life after death seems to be a major selling point for most if not all religions, and that does kind of hinge on human consciousness being somehow decoupled from the biological brain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:20 pm Post subject: 759 |
|
|
I can appreciate a theistic argument that goes something along these lines.
Creation comes with an inherent bias, ordained by the creator, such that life is inevitable and that there is an inexorable drive towards some epiphany.
This "ghost in the machine", drives the evolution of intelligent creatures and instils a desire to seek something beyond the physical.
I can even perceive of such a creator tweaking his creation in order to reach its final conclusion.
Under such conditions, many religions would emerge. None correct, but each improving over eons until the eventual perfect one evolves and the final epiphany is revealed.
That being said, I think its much more likely that religion is just the mind's way of dealing with the trauma of realising how much of our environment is out of our control.
For early metaphysical thinking beings, looking into the abyss must have been extremely traumatic. The mind is good at filling in the blanks. That's why eye-witness testimony is so unreliable. Inventing some force that encompasses the abyss in some comprehensible way would be the obvious result.
Even now. People cling onto religion for comfort. It lets people "know" that good deeds will be rewarded and that bad deeds will be punished. It allows people to let go of any angst they might have regarding their own mortality. It places a balance and order on the world that is far easier to comprehend than the chaos that is otherwise apparent.
Children have imaginary friends that provide comfort. People suffering an intense mental trauma become deluded, inventing false memories, experiencing amnesia or even creating completely new personalities in order to cope. Isn't it then obvious then, that creating a god is the inevitable result of coming to terms with our own existence and its fleeting nature?
Given what I have learned over the years about human nature and the workings of the universe, believing in God just seems like the less logical decision. You might argue that believing in God is not supposed to be a logical choice, but can we really trust our "spirit guide" given that many come to different and opposing conclusions after much devout meditation upon the matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: 760 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| If everything I feel or do can be entirely reduced to chemicals and nerve cells reacting, then why is it important what I feel? |
Even if everything you feel or do can be entirely reduced to chemicals and nerve cells reacting, why isn't it important what you feel? Those other bundles of chemicals and nerve cells in your life seem to care about that.
(Both this post and my previous one are a bit trollish, but there's a couple questions floating around: can you realistically separate the chemicals and nerve cells from everything else? Does it matter whether your behavior comes from science or something else?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
