Yes, but what questions are you asking that require something other than that. ‘Should I buy a lottery ticket?’, ‘Will I die when I go to sleep?’, what?
But you feel lousy and feel better in time, regardless of the religious activities you may or may not indulge in.
They may have been conditioned to think that the religious rituals “help” but you still have to grieve and you still have to hurt, and you will most likely get over it in time. Religious rituals or not.
I understand why people create the things they create (consistency and all) but it really doesn’t change anything. People are born, people die. Sometimes they die horrible deaths. Loss will always be painful and the mind lessens that pain over time. We all do our processes – with or without “official” ritual.
Without the preconditioning, you would make it through grief and loss the same as the rest of us. I still don’t see the advantage. It’s just a preference.
Why do people keep trying to relate this discussion to the proof/disproof of the existence of specific gods? You can assume the Norse, Greek, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindi gods don’t exist, and it doesn’t move you any closer to an answer to the question at the crux of this thread - the existence of a generic divine entity. Just because Thor doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean (for instance) that Yahweh doesn’t exist, and just because Yahweh doesn’t exist (as detailed in the Bible) doesn’t mean that Yahweh-Prime doesn’t exist.
As soon as you target a specific deity with specific properties and say “We can prove that person doesn’t exist as described” you’re looking at the wrong question.
This is kind of the crux of it right here though: Religion is a coping mechanism. It provides easy, convenient “answers” to questions that science ether cannot answer yet (what makes people do crazy things), or cannot answer at all because the question needing an answer isn’t scientific in nature (why isn’t life fair?). Humans don’t like randomness and chaos because it isn’t predictable and sometimes makes bad things happen for no good reason.
So, in order to create the illusion of some sort of structure, humans construct hypothetical situations that could give them the answers they need to cope with that which is otherwise inexplicable. Since there was a hell of a lot of things about this world that made little or no sense or didn’t fit into some sort of neat, organized structure, it became necessary to construct sentient, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent gestalt that is the reason for everything. An unknowable deity whose reasonings and movements were inscrutable and beyond the ken of mere mortals, but whom surely had good reasons for doing things, for such a deity was concerned only with the long-term well-being of mankind and one should not question His means or motives.
But as we evolve, science provides answers to those questions we couldn’t answer before, and thus more and more people are able to let go the crutch of religion as they begin to understand that maybe the answers they sought aren’t so mysterious after all.
To me, that’s what religion is, why it exists, and why it is still so prevalent. As much as science has discovered, it is still evolving and constantly learning more about how the world works, so many humans still need religion to provide such answers and reasons as science cannot yet provide. But it is still, as far as I am concerned, a construct.
It’s not a straw man, it’s an explanation to help bring some clarity to this discussion. DanBlather just above said he things agnosticism is the stupidest of all positions on the god issue, so I think that demonstrates the necessity of the clarification, don’t you? He’s clearly a #2.
I absolutely agree with you.
You may wanna tell Dan that, I don’t think he got the memo.
All of metaphysics is a circle jerk. Why should this be any different?
Well, it’s certainly the unimaginative course of action. But there’s the well-worn maxim that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. I maintain that my distinction between agnostics and atheists is valid, though, and it’s my contention that atheists (as distinguished in my post) have ignored that maxim. Agnostics have the most logical position.
You’re engaging in the same kind of close-minded proselytizing that fundamentalists do, and your assertion that it’s a stupid position to be working from is just as equivalent to “WRONG” or “NO U”. You’re starting with assumptions as givens that have not been conceded.
I agree 100%. Like I said, religion is a tool. It’s not the only tool by any means, but it’s not a “belief system”, like gonzomax asserted in post 135. And if it’s not a useful tool for (generic) you, then you should absolutely drop it and look for another one. But it is a useful one for some people, many of whom (like myself) are science-loving atheists.
I don’t know how to be any clearer than the post with the numbered list. There are three positions. Two of them involve having come to actual conclusions about the existence of god, and one of them doesn’t.
“A god exists.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence.
“No gods exist.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence.
“There’s no way to analyze the existence of a generic, invisible, omnipotent supreme being, and it’s irrelevant to try.” - No conclusion. Best position.
Note that the above are distinct from :
“The Judeo-Christian God exists.” - Conclusion, supported only by weak, circumstantial and often contradictory evidence.
and :
“The Judeo-Christian God does not exist.” Conclusion, supported by the weaknesses of the aforementioned evidence.
These latter points aren’t really of interest to me, nor are they on point to this discussion, I think. Though that’s Oakminster’s call.
Sorry, I was replying only to words 8 and 9, but was too lazy to trim down the quote box. It was hard to know what you meant with just two words completely out of context.
But who the hell believes in this prime mover god that does not interact with the universe in any way? This God that you are so determined to be agnostic about which is completely unfalsifiable?
No one I know who is a theist does. Are there many deists left around? I suppose they would have a point. 99.999999% of theists however do not believe in that god: they have a very specific, entirely falsifiable, deity in mind.
Regarding point 2. It should read:
“No gods exist”. - Conclusion. Those making the claim have no verifiable evidence to support their claims.
I don’t know why you insist on point 3. As others have pointed out there is no proof, thus no reason to think that such a thing ever existed.
A stranger walks up to you and asks to change a $100 he has in his pocket for 5 $20’s. You pull out the $20s and he holds out his hand. Do you hand him the $20s? Of course not. You ask to see the $100. He says it is an invisible $100. You put your $20s back in your pocket and walk away. You don’t think there is an option 3. And even if he did have a real $100 bill in his pocket, you’re never going to see it, so what does it matter?
But you do agree that we CAN state “there is no god” with certainty as long as we’re specifically only talking about every god except the “invisible, immaterial and impotent” ones?
